Like I said, I don’t like debating about homophobia. And I’ve done it more than I want to for the rest of this month. So please, take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.

For fuck’s sake I’m not trying to be obtuse or distract you from your beer! Heaven forefend!

a) I’ve already said that I can see how LILAPWL took what I said the way he did and that I won’t be using it to him again. Repeatedly. So focussing on my using one of those other billion phrases is to miss that part.

It’s also, importantly, to miss the part that he considers it to be universally a diminutive, that’s what he said.

“The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you”

The bolded bits are what leads me to conclude universality implicit and explicit in what LILAPWL said.

I’ve repeatedly disagreed that it is universally diminutive, or has universal diminutive implications. I’ve repeatedly disagreed that it is like “cunt” or any of the other dozen examples that you have given precisely because of that lack of universality. It’s a phrase that doesn’t have the universal implications that words like “cunt” do. Hence why I have been heavily emphasising context. The context shifts the meaning of it.

“Cunt” as insult can’t be other than sexist.

“My darling” as mere affectation, can be other than sexist/homphobic etc.

The two are categorically different and this will be the third time you’ve simply ignored this if you do.

Since I’ve already agreed that I am not going to use this term with LILAPWL again, it’s not a straw man to focus on the bit I was REALLY disagreeing with.

Again, he gets to interpret my words, but I can’t interpret his. That seems…reasonable. My reading of his original complaint was that it suffers from the same error you are making. Not seeing beyond your parochial nose. I’ve admitted my error in not seeing beyond my parochial nose, or at least not acknowledging it early enough and clearly enough, and for that I can only apologise.

b) Who am I talking to with my “my darling” joke in my post to you? Erm…YOU! You said earlier you’d be offended if I called you my darling. I think you’re persisting in your parochial view and not moving beyond it. I think you’re persisting in a category error and not moving beyond it. Can’t I humorously allude to that now?

I had no intention of abusing you in any homophobic manner. I realise my intent doesn’t count and I am genuinely sorry if what I said leads you to think I did so. Hell, I’m sorry eve if what I said DID so! Regardless of what anyone, you included thinks! I definitely will not use “my darling” to you again. If I remember, I’m only bloody human! ;-)

I hope this apology in some way assuages the excesses of my posts brought on by irritation as much as by genuine interest in combating homophobia, even my own.

There are linguistic elements I disagree with you about, but perhaps if we’d both phrased things differently, me more than you, neither of us would have talked past the other. If that’s what happened in part.

I have no wish to trigger you with discussions of homophobia and yes my intent there is not magic either. If I have, please know it was unintentional, not an act of conscious sadism on my part, if that helps. My apologies if this has been the case.

I hope you can at least understand the linguistic nit I’ve tried to pick, and I’m sorry the thread got out of hand, it was my fault as much as anything.

Well, perhaps I share your uncertainty about this, depending on what it is you regard to perhaps be the root cause.

In many instances, mentalism can’t exist without unwanted behavior being pathologized to begin with. Therefore I think pathologizing can be viewed as a root cause.

See anti-psychiatry. I don’t know enough about this topic, but I find it interesting.

And by posting that link, I’m not trying to say we should abandon the field of psychology. That would have “interesting” consequences. I’m only saying that psychology is full of problems, which when examined quickly can lead you to philosophical/ethical/existensial questions.

I posted this on the appropriate thread, but I’m pasting it here as well:

Gotta love that a thread that should be, at least partly, about the role of religion in disadvantaged social/ethic groups (and especially the role of religion in the lives of women in these groups) got derailed into a variety What About Teh Menz™.

Way to go.

I live and work in communities described in Sikavu Hutchinson’s excellent book. My family of origin is from similar communities. Religion is simultaneously a cancer and a solace in these communities. But apparently it’s not interesting enough to actually talk about how one can work in and for these communities, especially when someone is ill-advised enough to use the word “darling” in a flippant comment.

It’s not the sum of my arguments, and I certainly still disagree about some bits (as I will keep mentioning) of what you and others said, but the bits I did badly and got wrong I definitely apologise for.

Hmmm… portcullised in my first-ever attempt to post on TZT! But what is a zombie if not hard to kill, eh?

***
Louis:

First, over on the other thread (@248, IIRC), you addressed yourself to consciousness razor, then proceeded to blockquote something from me, followed by a response that actually responded to what CR had written rather than what you’d quoted. I HAZ A CONFYOOZ.

Second, I’ve been continuing to turn this over in my head, because I see a grain of truth in your assertion that darling is categorically different from words like twat, cunt, dick, and prick.

I think that’s right, as far as it goes, in that darling isn’t gendered (I hear women say it to men nearly as often as the other way ’round) and it does not explicitly refer to sexual anatomy… but I don’t think that goes quite far enough: Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers. When you apply the term to someone who is neither your lover nor a close enough friend that you can joke about being lovers, you are, whether you mean to or not, creating a grotesque implication of intimacy.

If a man says it to a woman, it’s a suggestion of nonpresent (and likely unwanted) intimacy that hints at sexuality and possession. Hence, though the word itself might not be sexist, using it in that context is. If a man says it to another man, the former is implicitly calling the latter gay. In a perfect world, of course, gay ought not be any sort of insult; in the world we actually live in, a straight man implying that another man is gay almost always means it as an insult. When the man so “insulted” actually is gay, it’s a double insult, quite obviously: [a] He’s been directly insulted, and [b] (part of) his essential nature has been defined as insulting.

Of course, it’s easy to imagine social situations — with close friends, in a pub, for instance — where this sort of parody of intimacy would seem like (and in fact be) mere harmless teasing, and maybe that’s how it sounded in your head as you were typing it… but in the middle of what was already an argument, with a gay man with whom you have really no personal relationship at all… dude, you shoulda’ known.

BTW, I don’t know if you’ve been around long enough to have witnessed it in the past, but lilapwl (albeit under a previous nym) and I have had some epic and bitter conflicts of our own… so don’t imagine I’m simply taking his side out of loyalty.

Last, re referring to Aratina Cage as she, <BillClinton>ah feeeel your pain!</BillClinton> For the longest time, I was reading Aratina as a particularly pretty feminine name… but eventually the curtains of stooooopid parted, and it dawned on me that the full nym is a play on a rat in a cage. D’Oh!

And this from a guy who thinks “Statistician Marge Inovera” is the funniest.joke.evarrrr!

Louis, I appreciate that you gave another thought to what I said. Thanks. I just don’t want to talk about it anymore.

+++++
Lars,

In many instances, mentalism can’t exist without unwanted behavior being pathologized to begin with. Therefore I think pathologizing can be viewed as a root cause.

That’s what I figured you were getting at. And that’s what I’m at least uncertain about. I don’t do deconstruction-of-mental-illness generally.

But I did recently have a discussion with someone here about how I might object to the use of schizophrenia as an insult, without further pathologizing as part of the objection, just in case pathologizing is indeed a root cause of the problem.

We came up with this template, which could be reworked for other diagnoses as necessary:

«It’s not OK to use schizophrenic as an insult because it’s stigmatizing in our culture. [1] Some people, including people who’ve been so diagnosed, have argued that “schizophrenia” doesn’t really exist [insert link here]. [2] Some people, including people who’ve been so diagnosed, have argued that “schizophrenia” does exist [insert link here]. [Randomize order of 1 and 2.] But in any case I do think that using a term that’s a stigmatizing label currently in our culture as an insult is a bad thing to do.»

Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers. When you apply the term to someone who is neither your lover nor a close enough friend that you can joke about being lovers, you are, whether you mean to or not, creating a grotesque implication of intimacy.

Listen, mate!

‘Twas combative banter, and you knew it at the time.

—

This business of calling out every fucking jaywalking incident, is not something I aspire to.

Anyone you’d call mate would probably laugh at darling… but AFAIK, Louis and lilapwl ain’t mates… not in any sense of the word.

I really have no interest in mediating spats between regulars here, nor am I interested in being a PC threadcop… but I am interested in… fascinated by, in fact… the way language works, and how something that seems perfectly innocent to one can seem transgressive to another, and how they can both be at least partly right.

Call it an exercise in (purely) amateur anthropology, or maybe sociolinguistics, if you will; I’m mildly surprised the analytical aspects don’t appeal to you.

On your first…oh bugger I was probably confused! Without looking it’s the most parsimonious explanation! It’s nearly 4 am here now and I have a run to do early doors. Still He Who Lives By SIWOTI… ;-)

On your second:

Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers.

And this is where I think the disagreement lies in part. It’s the assumption of the universal diminutive, or in your case, universal intimacy. Wait a second, I’m off to YouTube:

I can’t find a good Cornish “my darlin'” But I can find Jethro. Ignore the various -isms in his humour, listen to the accent. People like that, admittedly of a certain generation and class now, use “my lover” and “my darlin'” to men and women of all ages and orientations indiscriminately. Hell, this is my old childhood stomping ground, I’m “Louis” to those that remember/know my name and “Awroit moi luvver” or “Awroit moi darlin'” to those who don’t. It’s as common as muck in the right context. I’m trying to find the evidence but my brain is flagging and I am fading fast.

Now listen to Terry Thomas. That man never said “my darling” in all his life without some meaning. Diminutive, intimate or otherwise.

I don’t deny, and haven’t denied, for one second that the implication of a diminutive or over familiar intimacy can exist, I do deny it universally does. And I really deny it’s not massively dependent on context. It requires both the speaker to say it and the listener to hear it to some degree.

Note, this doesn’t negate the smaller claim: “‘my darling’ is offensive to ME for reasons X Y and Z”. I’m on board with that utterly.

It’s disagreement with the claim “‘my darling’ is universally and necessarily discriminatory to a member specific group because it is universally a diminutive/intimate/whatever”.

As for the rest, I really, really, REALLLLLLLLLY do get it, and indeed agree. But I don’t really think any of that’s in question. It’s the first bit, the assumption that this phrase necessarily/universally has certain implications, despite being inherently ambiguous, that I take issue with.

Louis

P.S. Since I lived in Nottingham for a good while I couldn’t resist linking this

That was explicit: “But I did recently have a discussion with someone here about how I might object to the use of schizophrenia as an insult, without further pathologizing as part of the objection, just in case pathologizing is indeed a root cause of the problem.”

And so I responded to Lars, who shares the same concern.

I don’t see in what way, unless I pretend it was some hidden message about you.

Anyone you’d call mate would probably laugh at darling… but AFAIK, Louis and lilapwl ain’t mates… not in any sense of the word.

From my perspective at least, you’re wrong. I bear the man not a jot of ill will no matter how intemperate my language at times. I can do great damage through mere irritation. To my eternal disgrace.

I’ve even referred to him in a complimentary fashion in parliament! Sorry sorry, couldn’t resist the joke. Seriously, LILAPWL is, I think (and have said) a bloody good “canary in the mine” for certain types of fucked-up-ness. I think he has certain tendencies that cause him to butt heads now and then with people, but then so do I. I can’t really complain. I don’t think this makes him universally right though, neither am I universally right dammit, and thus I argue. It might get heated at times, that’s a character flaw more than an indication of animus.

Fucking dog pilers though, ohhh how I hate them. The little weaselly kids that followed the bullies at school. An honest bully I can understand, a dog piler? No respect. I may be exaggerating for comedy effect.

Oh and comedy aside, I had to train my accent to go from almost Jethro to almost Terry Thomas. Those examples are VERY real to me! :-)

I totally wandered over here to discuss zombie-killing strategy and more importantly zombie-killing weapons, since my motto is “there are no problems, only opportunities… opportunities to buy overpriced gadgets!” I guess that’s not what this is actually about.

Incidentally, I’ve had “roight moi darlin'”s and “roight moi luvvers” from people of both sexes, both older and younger than me, when I’ve asked for directions or bought something in a shop. I’m trying to get across how neutral this is, it really isn’t universally implying intimacy etc. It’s an affectation, a local colour, a figure of speech a….I don’t know how many different ways I can say the same damned thing!

I’m neither their lover nor their darling. It’s just not that sort of phrase in that context. I can see how someone would take it so but it ain’t necessarily so. Again.

My favourite “roight moi luvver” was when I was out walking near Tintagel and I asked a farmer/farmhand the way back to the road (I’d gone inland and cross country a good bit) and he replied “roight my luvver, it’s two moile that way. If you get a move on you’ll get there dreckly.”. To which his colleague immediately chipped in with “ee’s walkin’, tell ‘im it’s aaaaaf that.”. Which is apparently what passes for humour because they both pissed themselves laughing at it.

The comment section of your blog has largely been taken over by a dishonest, hypocritical gang of bullies. They apparently won’t be satisfied until they scapegoat, pile on, and drive sg (and anyone who calls them out on or defends themselves against their bullshit) away. You’ve played into it with your comments about and actions toward sg.

Despite my hope that this could potentially become the intellectual-honesty and critical-discussion thread rather than the Free Speech Zone your banishing sg here initially appeared – I was waiting and watching – your threats to close the other thread if the “derail” continued and the subsequent comments here have confirmed my fears.

I doubt you care if or why I stop commenting, temporarily or permanently, but there it is.

To the gang: The next time someone responds to your anodyne/angry rejection of “honey,” “dear,” a diminutive form of your ‘nym, and so on in an argument with a version of Louis’s blather or your shrugging dismissal and points to this, you have yourselves to blame. Anyone reading with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that if Josh had said what sg did to Louis and Louis had responded as he did, your reaction would have been entirely different.

I realise (and knew beforehand sadly, but didn’t think of it) that what I said could be taken in a homophobic way, and I’ve apologised for that.

I don’t agree with every angle taken by every single poster on that derail, and by far and away the majority of voices are excoriating ME not LILAPWL. If you think silence from others is persecution of LILAPWL then you’re being deliberately uncharitable. People can not want to become embroiled in “drama” for innocent reasons too.

If Josh had said to me exactly what LILAPWL said I’d have been vastly more shocked. It would have been more out of character, IMO, I have less reason to suspect Josh’s motives in the way I did LILAPWL’s (rightly or wrongly). I interpret LILAPWL’s phrasing to have very specific implications, just like he interpreted my phrasing to have specific implications. Neither are wrong, but neither are unambiguously binding or right either.

What you are perhaps not understanding is that response could have been to anyone, irrespective of any characteristic about them. Believe that or not, I don’t care, it’s true independent of your belief.

Incidentally, I really do fucking resent the continual evidence free accusation from some quarters that this is about LILAPWL or his sexuality. It’s just so fucking tiresomely irrelevant and untrue.

I might trust LILAPWL less in some circumstances than I’d trust {insert whoever you fancy here, fuck knows, I can’t think of an example}, but then I’d trust him vastly more in others. Usually I think his calling out of prejudicial terms is spot on, even when I’m the culprit. I don’t think that’s entirely the case here and I really don’t think it’s the case for some of the dog pilers.

@Louis
Sorry, I had to run to make it to a showing of Prometheus before I could respond to you on the atheism and social science thread.

From #245 in that thread

Nothing to do with my intent, nothing to do with how nice a chap (or not) I am.

I never said you weren’t a nice chap or anything, and I’m perfectly fine with nice chaps being mean or trading barbs with others. I even like you well enough. I didn’t think you understood what was being said about what you said is all. Since you understood, I don’t get why you fussed about it for so long.

Everything to do with the fact that the interpretation of that phrase is not clear cut, not hard and fast, not demonstrably the same for everyone. It is context dependent. The cultural context, which yes you appear to have failed to consider, is relevant here.

That gate swings both ways, I think, and furthermore, I think it swings your way a bit farther and you got hit by it when it swung back.

I also notice that none of you have picked up on the fact that I haven’t called LILAPWL “my darling” since, nor will I. I’m happy to not do it if he doesn’t like it. I’m happy to acknowledge the perfect validity of him seeing it as a homophobic slur by way of casual misogyny. I’m not happy to allow that to be a universal claim for an ambiguous phrase whose context you are most certainly not fully considering.

Clear yet?

All clear. Really, though, we weren’t arguing about your future self but about what you did in the past.

Anyone reading with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that if Josh had said what sg did to Louis and Louis had responded as he did, your reaction would have been entirely different.

You’re absolutely right. Josh is a reasonable person who’s generally pleasant to talk to. SG is a priggish, arrogant douchecanoe with a massive chip on his shoulder. As a result, people react to the two of them in different ways. I’ve had my share of disagreements with Josh, but I’ve always respected him and I feel he respects me. SG is an asshole who respects nobody and doesn’t hide his unwarranted superiority.

SG wants to be Truth Machine but lacks the intelligence to pull it off.

LOL. This happens to me a lot because people say it in their heads differently than I intended. No worries. I used to think it didn’t matter, but with all the shit that women get online, I think it is better people know I that I’m privileged that way.

From my perspective at least, you’re wrong. I bear the man not a jot of ill will

I didn’t mean you bore him any ill will, nor do I imagine that you do. I only meant that you two are (again, AFAIK) not friends, certainly not the sort of close friends whose relationship supports (or even demands) the verbal equivalent of a friendly poke in the shoulder.

We’ve actually had some conversations here, back in the day, about how even regulars here aren’t the same as meatspace friends (unless they really are friends in meatspace), and how easy it is to fall into the trap of feeling like you know people better than you really do.

As for your argument about universality, now we really are getting close to the same logic that cunt defenders use (though I’m emphatically not putting you in that category). Like cunt, darling has a long history as an English word, and the division between British and American English is fairly recent. It really is the same word.

People who argue, “well, it might mean that in America, but it doesn’t over here,” don’t really mean mean: They’re really making an argument about usage. Darling still (primarily) means “beloved” in British English just as much as it does in American English, and just as much as cunt means female genitalia in both countries. What “it doesn’t mean that over here” really asserts is that the word is more broadly colloquialized (is that a word?) in British English, such that it’s less offensive in more different usages and social contexts.

Certainly there are words whose colloquial usages have overwhelmed their etymology: Geek used to mean a particular sort of carnival performer, and some dictionaries still list that as the primary definition… but few actual users of the word even know that history, and those who do likely think of the original meaning as a bit of interesting trivia, unrelated to current usage. Moron and idiot have histories as clinical terms, but are now more or less universally considered generic insults. If I called you crazy or schizo, people here would (quite rightly) call me out for stigmatizing mental illness; if I called you an idiot, probably not. And if I called you a dork, nobody would be thinking of whale penises (well, this group might, but that’s because we’re all geeks).

So the question here is whether, in Britain, at least, words like cunt or darling have, in fact, been so thoroughly colloquialized that they really are separate from their earlier “true” meanings? Clearly the consensus here is that this is not the case with cunt; I don’t think it really is with darling, either. I’m willing to believe that casual/colloquial expressions of intimacy are acceptable in a broader range of social contexts on your side of the pond, but I think the word still really means what it means… or, at a minimum, it’s still at high risk for being “misunderstood” as meaning what it means (if you can follow that).

I’m interested in the mechanisms by which words ultimately do get truly divorced from their earlier meanings, and what the threshold criteria for treating them that way might be, but I don’t have any good theories. One partial notion is this: As long as any significant part of a language’s global community still holds to the earlier, noncolloquial meaning, that meaning remains at least minimally attached to the word throughout the whole language. IOW, as long as cunt remains an offensive reference to female genitalia for any significant number of English speakers, it will always carry at least the echo of misogyny wherever (and however) it’s used. Likewise, as long as darling means beloved to any large number of English speakers, it will carry at least the risk of seeming inappropriate whenever it’s used casually.

Ungendered though it may be, what darling is is an expression of personal intimacy, most often between lovers.

I don’t think this is quite right.

Zsa Zsa Gabor is the most famous example of someone who made it a habit to call everyone “darling” like she breathed, but being a serial-monogamist diva isn’t required to do it. I’ve known many, many people born before the 50s who were the same way IRL.

In the South, it’s been very common for adults from those generations to call people, even strangers, by a lot of babyish names–honey, sweetie, sugar, darlin’ and so on. Elderly black people in multiple states have called me those things even through my 40s. South Texas Hispanics do something similar with mijo/mija (my son/daughter).

Maybe it’s a cultural thing from having grown up in the South, but I get upset about it only if it’s done by colleagues in a professional setting–or by someone I dislike. If the cashier at the grocery store calls me “mija”, though, I don’t have a major fucking freakout. My husband doesn’t when he’s called mijo–which he frequently is.

Following up on this mess, specifically the hypothetical of how Josh or whoever would get treated vs SG:

Buried in Louis’s comments, he mentioned twice that he didn’t give the criticism weight coming from someone he didn’t trust. That’s much less obvious than someone being an asshole; and hypothetical-Josh (like everyone, basically) can be a raging asshole, too.

Compare to Jason Thibeault getting called out for a homophobic comment, which he retracted and explained at length on his site. Initially he got called out by a nasty, dishonest troll, so didn’t believe the accusation until people he DID trust concurred:

5h Jason Thibeault ‏@lousycanuck
@szvan @nataliereed84 This is tough. I hate splash damage and don’t trust the troll who’s claiming it, but I trust you that it’s necessary.

This also works the other way – because I run to good faith and politeness in how I respond, I’m liable to get trusted too much. In that same thread, baal commented how great I am compared to how Caine and Ogvorbis were treating him, I assume because over in JT’s trainwreck I was educating baal rather than calling him out. I’m not particularly proud of having THAT endorsement.

should louis change his sense of sensibilities he grew up with because you grew up with different ones?

Reading that, I can’t help but think about how much it looks like reasoning for why calling people sexist and homophobic slurs is OK if you come from a place (no matter how small) where the cultural sensibilities allow for that. And there are blogs that allow that or even encourage it, but I was under the impression that such behavior was not welcome here at Pharyngula, at least not at this time.

Besides that, many of us have come from such places and we have learned and continue to learn that those kind of cultural sensibilities that were instilled into us are harmful, and we have ended up rejecting them in favor of less destructive language. It isn’t usually a very heavy burden to have to learn better insults or ways of saying things IMO.

Reading that, I can’t help but think about how much it looks like reasoning for why calling people sexist and homophobic slurs is OK if you come from a place (no matter how small) where the cultural sensibilities allow for that. And there are blogs that allow that or even encourage it, but I was under the impression that such behavior was not welcome here at Pharyngula, at least not at this time.

Apparently.

Which is why I asked “Hey, ॐ, do you like today’s Pharyngula more than in times of yore?” in the previous decarnation of TZT.

See, when ॐ began commenting here, it was a different thing.

Bluntly put, there was no such expectation of intolerance.

Calling out happened or not (SC was prominent), but there was no such expectation.

Ahh, but I’m married, sweetheart… and more constitutionally likely to be attracted to a Nigella than a Nigel… but even so, I’m blushing.

Query: Is that sexist of me?

Clearly I’m not offended! ;^)

(Hmm… you pose an interesting question: Why am I not offended, given that you and I are no more intimates than Louis and lilapwl are? Perhaps the presence of other markers of good will/good humor change the social valence of something like darling?)

Buried in Louis’s comments, he mentioned twice that he didn’t give the criticism weight coming from someone he didn’t trust. That’s much less obvious than someone being an asshole; and hypothetical-Josh (like everyone, basically) can be a raging asshole, too.

What do you mean by “much less obvious”?

I don’t think you’re saying that’s a good justification, but what difference does it make?

(Hmm… you pose an interesting question: Why am I not offended, given that you and I are no more intimates than Louis and lilapwl are? Perhaps the presence of other markers of good will/good humor change the social valence of something like darling?)

Well, I did step into this reading backwards, so I was completely ignorant of all that came before. Maybe my innocence and naiveté were disarming?

I put it to you that the hammering at the perceived doubling-down and the exponentialaing down is the actual derail, and I further put it to you that the initial call-out is a better candidate for the proximate cause of the derail than the doubling-down itself, which is a reaction to it.

(Wanna debate whether it’s the actual (oh so noteable) offence that’s the specific cause of the derail, or whether it’s the call-out to it?)

Erm, I don’t get it. While I personally don’t like sg very much, I thought sg in this case was right in telling Louis not to call him that, and Louis already apologized. I mean really, if a person doesn’t like being called something, one should try to be understanding and don’t do it unless one is trying to pick a fight. And in this case, I don’t see a reason to pick a fight with him.

I doubt you care if or why I stop commenting, temporarily or permanently, but there it is.

I’ve obviously missed a lot lately.

It’s strange: as long as I’ve been here (a couple of years, maybe), there have been a few constants. One is the intellectualism I have come to expect. Two is the fucking passion of the regular commenters. Three is… well, just seeing some of the same nyms again and again.

I’ve learned a lot about myself. Generally, I just stand back and watch folks duke it out. I kinda hate that about myself, really, the fact that I can just watch folks I know and care about fight it out, but really, what do I have to offer? I’ve learned I have very little real to offer. I am never quite sure which side is right, and with which I sympathize. Sometimes it’s the same side, and sometimes it’s not.

This is especially hard when it’s folks with whom I’m attached.

Yeah. I’m a coward. I refuse to take sides, unless I’m convinced one side is in the right. Even then, I find it hard to critique someone whom I like and respect.

This is one of the reasons I really, really hope you are not serious about leaving.

SC, I rely on you.

I rely on you to say the things I think, but am not brave enough to say.

Not just you. I rely on SGBM, and Louis, and Ichthyic, and Brownian (of course Brownian) and chigau, and a whole slew of others. Some I have grown to love, like Caine and Mattir, and ‘Tis, and Nerd, and Brownian (of course Brownian). And you. (And, weirdly, SGBM, too.)

I understand if things aren’t right for you here. Hell, I just discovered that TET has overflowed into TZT, the one place I felt OK. If you gotta go, you gotta go.

I just wanted to say, I like you here. A lot of that might have to do with my comfort zone. But most of it has to do with, I like you here.

I mean, whether somebody is trustworthy/considered trustworthy by whoever’s arguing with them, is much less obvious than whether somebody is being an asshole / is considered to be being an asshole by whoever’s arguing with them. I was thinking of “obvious to bystanders” but it might not be obvious to the participants, either.

I also think trust is more salient than whether somebody’s being an asshole, especially here. “Being an asshole” is just a tone argument for most uses of the epithet.

I mean, whether somebody is trustworthy/considered trustworthy by whoever’s arguing with them, is much less obvious than whether somebody is being an asshole / is considered to be being an asshole by whoever’s arguing with them. I was thinking of “obvious to bystanders” but it might not be obvious to the participants, either.

Either could be substantiated. Besides, I’d say it’s usually easier to get people to agree on what is trustworthy than what is assholish. I guess there’s room for disagreement with both, but with less wiggle-room when it’s a matter of trust, because the truth (or their honesty/fairness about it) can be verified more-or-less objectively in ways assholishness cannot.

I also think trust is more salient than whether somebody’s being an asshole, especially here. “Being an asshole” is just a tone argument for most uses of the epithet.

I don’t think it’s at all salient here. If you don’t trust someone (or if you think they’re an asshole), that doesn’t mean you should act however you want to them. It’s not a valid reason for dismissing whatever they might say, nor is it a good excuse for making bigoted remarks, however unintentional or ambiguous they may be.

That’s just a typical rule out for abdominal/chest pain in a woman and the radiation to the right shoulder is classic.

it’s the left shoulder that hurts. which is likely why I got taped to an ECG before any other tests (and never was I so glad to not have chest-hair as when she was ripping the stickers off).

John, the most fun I ever had at Pharyngula was arguing with a certain libertarian for a solid year.

We still get to argue, but now we can argue by email

*feeling nostalgic and envious*

I loved reading those arguments; probably some of the most informative, intellectually satisfying exchanges I’ve read on pharyngula. poo on you for hiding them from me by being all private and friendshippy :-p

South Texas Hispanics do something similar with mijo/mija (my son/daughter).

That would actually be “mi hijo/hija” said very quickly. All H’s in Spanish are silent, so it would end up sounding like mijo/a at high speed or if slurred together (such as “going to” being slurred together into “gonna”).

cr: I never said lack of trust was a VALID reason to automatically disbelieve a claim; quite the opposite, see the examples I gave. Neither did you, initially:

I don’t think you’re saying that’s a good justification, but what difference does it make?

I said I think trust is more salient than tone when observing that different people have the same or similar claims treated differently. Distrust just gets conflated with assholish behavior.

Also, being truthful is just one way of establishing trust, and not necessarily the most powerful. That might be the only way YOU relate the concepts; but taking offense is subjective and can’t ever be verified as “true”, only as reasonable at best.

you are, whether you mean to or not, creating a grotesque implication of intimacy.

and by the way, initiating greater intimacy, as well as non-reciprocal intimacy are hierarchical notions: the maid and the chauffeur are “Rosa” and “Jeffrey”, while the owners of the house/car are “Mr./Mrs. Moneybags”; the secretary/PA is “Sara”, the exec is “Ms. Boss”; etc.

and calling someone “darling” even if it bled into meaningless colloqualism to be used on any and everyone, is a form of intimacy and hierarchical posturing (I experience it usually as being called a child by older people)

For the record, if someone pulled a “darling” on me in the way Louis did, in person, they would have left learning how to fend off infection without a skin.

I don’t grok this, at all. However, you certainly have every right to your own feelings on the matter. Perhaps I have too many friends from the UK or something and know too many people like Aquaria described, I don’t know. I use love in the UK way all the time, frinst., thanks, love and have never had a bad reaction to it, although I do try to refrain when out and about, because this is ‘merica.

Frankly, SG was right.

I agree, in that SG was right as to how the use affected him. He was not right in his blanket statement that it is universally homophobic.

I never said lack of trust was a VALID reason to automatically disbelieve a claim; quite the opposite, see the examples I gave.

Okay, I don’t know the backstory, but I’ve already tried to interpret what you were going for with your examples.

I said I think trust is more salient than tone when observing that different people have the same or similar claims treated differently.

What do you mean by “salient,” and why compare it to tone? It’s clear you don’t mean obvious, because you just said so. Do you mean important or significant, and if so, then about what? Are you explaining why people behave this way and what’s important to them in that sense, even though it’s not important with regard to how they ought to behave?

It’s weird: I have never felt comfortable with pet names. Okay, my wife calls me The Nerd sometimes (not to be confused with Nerd of Redhead, of course). But I’ve never been comfortable with sweetheart or honey or yes, even darling. First, all of those seems kinda trivial, kinda trite. Second, I just can’t say the with a straight face.

But.

I have called her Love from time to time. And she, me.

I’m not sure what the difference is, other than Love is hard to trivialize.

I don’t grok this, at all. However, you certainly have every right to your own feelings on the matter. Perhaps I have too many friends from the UK or something and know too many people like Aquaria described, I don’t know. I use love in the UK way all the time, frinst., thanks, love and have never had a bad reaction to it, although I do try to refrain when out and about, because this is ‘merica.

“Thanks, love” as in “I appreciate you passing me that scone” or “Thanks, love” as in “fuck you, you insufferable pissant with whom I’m tired of conversing”?

As Louis said, context matters.

I agree, in that SG was right as to how the use affected him.

Which was SG’s original claim.

It was only when Louis doubled down that homophobia in America got cross-examined and we were treated to a lesson on the myriad and wonderful affectations of linguistic variants in the English countryside.

I don’t see a difference between “Don’t speak to me like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.” and “Guys, don’t do that.”

I don’t see a difference between “Don’t speak to me like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.” and “Guys, don’t do that.”

So, what happened to the original derailment when this little switch was pulled?

I don’t see a difference between “Don’t speak to me like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.” and “Guys, don’t do that.”

Don’t speak to me like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.

…and back to the discussion at hand.

Louis retorted with:

Oh dry the fuck up you pathetic little pissant. I’d use precisely the same language to anyone regardless of sex, sexuality or any other complicating factor. It was a slightly self deprecating, friendly, humorous drawl, a British affectation, not a comment on your hypersensitivity or sexuality. Get over yourself, it’s not all about you.

I mean, really? That kind of retort is okay because it’s SG?

I don’t give a shit who disagrees with me on this, because fuck. that. noise.

..never was I so glad to not have chest-hair as when she was ripping the stickers off.

Oh, you are so very right about that. That’s the worst part of the whole heart scare procedure. The best part, after of course the negative results, was seeing my heart beat in real time. The echo-cardiogram monitor was in just the right place where I could do a little skootch and wiggle to get a good view.

I also took a certain delight in scaring the crap out of one of the nurses. After a couple of minutes on the treadmill the Dr. looked over the tech’s shoulder and said “Right, that 83.” and I realised that they were running me at ~83% of my max heart rate.

I’d been told as reveled wisdom that at 80% of max you’ll only be able to get out three syllables before having to take a breath. So here was an opportunity to test it.

As I said “One” the nurse who had been sitting on a rail right next to the treadmill, rubber gloves on, stethoscope around neck, jumped out and reached out to grab me. Her job at that point was to catch patients in whom they had induced heart attacks. I laughed, I’m not a good person, though I did explain and apologise later. [/pointless anecdote]

Oh dry the fuck up you pathetic little pissant. I’d use precisely the same language to anyone regardless of sex, sexuality or any other complicating factor. It was a slightly self deprecating, friendly, humorous drawl, a British affectation, not a comment on your hypersensitivity or sexuality. Get over yourself, it’s not all about you.

I mean, really? That kind of retort is okay because it’s SG?

No.

It ain’t OK because it’s S-fucking-G, it’s OK because it was a genuine statement — at least if you don’t believe that Louis is some blatant conscious liar.

(Which he aint, IMO, and I find this a weak-sauce basis for imagining such)

I wrote that I stand by Louis, and this is precisely why.

Yes, it adds to the background, it buys into the perception, it enables the true homophobes.

It ain’t OK because it’s S-fucking-G, it’s OK because it was a genuine statement — at least if you don’t believe that Louis is some blatant conscious liar.

What the fucking goddamn fucking fuck does honesty have to do with it?

And Elevator Guy genuinely wanted Rebecca Watson to come to his room for coffee and take it from there.

The point is, as we’ve all hammered home time and fucking time and fucking time and fucking time and what the fuck else do we talk about on this motherfucking fucking blog, intent doesn’t fucking goddamn can I fit another motherfucking fucking in here? fucking matter.

(Which he aint, IMO, and I find this a weak-sauce basis for imagining such

What do you mean by “salient,” and why compare it to tone? It’s clear you don’t mean obvious, because you just said so. Do you mean important or significant, and if so, then about what? Are you explaining why people behave this way and what’s important to them in that sense, even though it’s not important with regard to how they ought to behave?

Did you see the start of my first comment?

Following up on this mess, specifically the hypothetical of how Josh or whoever would get treated vs SG:

‘Tis said Josh would be treated better because SG’s an asshole and Josh isn’t. I was pointing out that, in my estimation of Louis’s case, in Jason Thibeault’s case, and in baal’s evaluation of me vs Caine and Ogvorbis, whether someone’s an asshole or not gets conflated with whether they can be trusted. But here especially, where being an asshole is tolerated and tone arguments discouraged, trust is a bigger factor in how someone’s received than their tone is.

Salient: important, significant, and I meant to imply “strategically relevant”. I shouldn’t have used “salient” and “obvious” so close together for different arguments: I’m saying trust is more important, *and less obvious*, than tone.

Are you explaining why people behave this way and what’s important to them in that sense, even though it’s not important with regard to how they ought to behave?

…That’s a bunch of stuff I didn’t claim, nor would I try with my rotten social skills. Jason T. didn’t believe a claim of offense due to the source. I think Louis probably did the same. Both of them accepted the claim when *trusted* persons weighed in. So the “assholes” in both cases were proven right, at least as right as potentially bigoted language claims ever can be. And, they were proven right by trusted persons *making the same arguments*, not by better empirical evidence.

1. Louis was wrong. Not in what he initially said, but in doubling down. I would have had SG’s back too.

2. Louis recognized that and apologized.

3. While it’s understandable that people treat the same argument differently depending on the person it is most certainly not ethical or a state of affairs to be desired.

4. I can’t believe I’m seeing people who’ve been through ElevatorGate playing “intent is magic” and “but it doesn’t mean that in England” (note: I am NOT talking about Louis. He gets this. Some of you don’t).

What the bleeding fuck is wrong with you? Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You know what — don’t answer. Just shut up. I’ve had about enough of having to cross people off my Reasonable Person register.

‘Tis said Josh would be treated better because SG’s an asshole and Josh isn’t. I was pointing out that, in my estimation of Louis’s case, in Jason Thibeault’s case, and in baal’s evaluation of me vs Caine and Ogvorbis, whether someone’s an asshole or not gets conflated with whether they can be trusted. But here especially, where being an asshole is tolerated and tone arguments discouraged, trust is a bigger factor in how someone’s received than their tone is.

Are you explaining behavior or justifying it with this comparison to tone arguments?

We’re not too keen on opinions or taking things on faith around here either. ‘Tis called him an asshole. Louis called him untrustworthy. So? Are you saying SG can’t be trusted? What has he done that has lost some of Louis’ (or your) trust?

Much as I adore your prose styling, Brownian, this is not true. Intent is not magic. But intent is also not nothing.

If you harm somebody, then intent does not magically fix the harm. Injury has happened, regardless of intent. Intent provides no magical fix. What intent does do, however, is establish the difference between accident and assault; manslaughter and murder; slip-up and slimepit.

Or are you saying that we all get to say things like that while 1) we are ignorant of what we are doing or 2) we do not know that people will take the things we say in the worst possible ways? And that saying such things ceases to be OK once we have been educated about the worst possible meanings or told that people reading what we write are taking these things in the worst possible ways so that we would have to blatantly, consciously lie were we to continue using them? Something like a one-strike rule?

Because I think we already have that kind of system here where the ones who are blatantly, consciously lying implicate themselves because they refuse to stop saying what they are saying no matter what we tell them, and we eventually get a sexist/homophobic/etc. bingo from their comments and then they are confined to TZT or banned.

Well I couldn’t sleep and my run was fucking awful. Given that, and intravenous coffee, I’ll try to be as un-irritated as possible and shed more light than heat. Forgive me if the veil of decency slips once in a while. Or at least hit me with a stick.

Bill D, #52,

Okay, right off the bat there’s the assumption that what I did to LILAPWL was a “verbal punch in the arm”. That’s an assumption that’s at the heart of where you (plural, perhaps Americans) are going wrong.

It was not a punch in the arm, verbal, friendly, unfriendly or anything of that type. It was an expansive gesture, an affectation, a piece of humorous self deprecation and all the other things I’ve tried to explain that seem to be being largely ignored (I’ve only read to #52 at the moment).

That doesn’t negate the fact that it could be a “verbal punch in the arm” in some other context, it specifically states it isn’t in THIS context. Now if LILAPWL’s arm is hurting, then he (and you and anyone) need only look UP THREAD. If I’ve unintentionally (not magic I know) hurt his arm with something you (plural) wish to see as a verbal punch/over familiar intimacy/diminutive, then for that I am genuinely sorry. If I’ve accidentally bruised arms and trodden on toes I am genuinely sorry and will be more careful in future. AS I HAVE SAID. Can we move past that yet?

{Shit….sorry…irritation levels briefly flared. I am spectacularly imperfect. In the interim I have just taken a double espresso and three Buddhisms intravenously ;-) }

What I am objecting to is the claim that this is as clear cut a verbal punch in the arm, with as clear cut implications of intimacy or diminutive etc as you (plural) are claiming. I am specifically making the case that this is NOT like “cunt” and what not. Context matters here more than there. Quite a lot more, and that context is relevant to deciding whether or not that comment is a punch in the arm, implicitly intimate, diminutive or otherwise.

On the issue of offence, as a quick aside, it’s called “taking offence” for a reason. It relies on a partnership between the offender and offendee to some extent. That extent is in part determined by the context. That the offendee can be offended in total absence of effort of the offender is one point on that spectrum (the most “taking” part of “taking offence”). And in that circumstance the thing to do is what I (eventually) did, apologise for the inadvertent offence caused.

It isn’t however binding on ambiguous offending articles (in this case a phrase), regardless of whether or not that ambiguity is 1% or 99%. The path most travelled does not erase the pass less travelled, nor does it invalidate journeys down it. Fuck me…I’m about to derive a sum over all histories/path integral/Feynman diagram approach to language aren’t I? ;-)

Back to the res.

A couple of examples/analogies of varying degrees of applicability:

Above I related an anecdote about when I was walking near Tintagel. Had it been LILAPWL instead of me would the appropriate response to “roight moi luvver” or “roight moi darlin'” been “Don’t talk to me like that.” followed by an explanation of how such a term could be used homophobically? I’d argue no. And with some force. There’s not a shred of homophobia or anything there. There’s no over familiar intimacy, no diminutive, nothing of the sort. It’s a local phrase, a bit of parochial colour for that area, a verbal affectation, it’s not significant. Any homophobia, any insult, any familiarity, any intimacy, any diminutive is being imported by LILAPWL’s cultural history and context, and is dismissive of the farmhand’s cultural history and context in an ambiguous case.

Note that last bit.

What LILAPWL and you and others are doing is insisting your cultural history and context trumps that of the person whose field you are standing in.

Again, this farm hand didn’t use the phrase as an insult, rather like I don’t have to use (and don’t!) my tyre spanner as a murder weapon but it can be so used, the context of his use of the phrase (my tyre spanner) dictated what type of use it was (not murderous).

Unless that farmhand was a nit picky fuckwit like me I suspect that informing him of your cultural context would have resulted in him using HIS tyre iron in an unpleasant fashion! I jest, I jest, but it links me to example/analogy 2!

You’re An American For Your Sins, right? ;-)

I suspect you’d have no problem with the word “pal” as a word used towards people you weren’t very familiar with. As in “Hey, pal, mind if I just move my car? Thanks!” or “Hey, pal, do you want to go to make out point in my Camaro?” or some such Americanism (okay, okay I went for deliberately piss taking stereotypes, you know what I mean! Brownian inspired me ;-) ).

I have a massive problem with the word. Entirely derived from my cultural history and context.

The same applies to the word “mate” to a lesser extent in certain contexts. If I hear “Hey, pal”, even gently, delivered I brace for a physical fight. I’m not saying I’ve never used that word, I’m sure I’ve fucked up a time or two, but I try really hard to avoid it because as far as I’m concerned if I say “pal” I am two seconds away from hitting the target of that word with a very strong left.

If I’m in Plymouth in a nightclub, as I so often have been, and I hear “‘Ere mate” I fucking duck!. If I’m in a pub in Teignmouth I do the same thing. Hell, if I’m in a pub in Teignmouth, I’m wearing body armour and carrying a baseball bat in each hand. I’m joking again…well…I’m joking if anyone from Teignmouth is reading. Seriously. Lovely place. Lovely, but violent. ;-)

If I’m in a pub in Finsbury Park (London) and I hear “‘Ere mate” I don’t duck. Unless it’s delivered in a Teignmouth accent. Same word, same commonality of meaning, same dictionary definition, same global potential for confusion, different context. The word use is sufficiently ambiguous to make the context extremely relevant. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1% ambiguous or 99%. It’s unlike “cunt” (which is bad everywhere to varying degrees, but unambiguously sexist) which does not have the same degree or type of ambiguity. Hence category error.

My “my darling” was that Cornish “moi darlin'”. Your “pal” is an American “pal”. If I insisted that your “pal” was a Plymouthian “pal” and punched you in the face (not what LILAPWL did but follow me here) I think you’d have a pretty good case for objection (and an assault charge!).

“Cunt” et al. don’t fit that bill. Those words exist across a range of offensiveness but their use hasn’t evolved far from their original meaning. Interestingly, I don’t think I’m wrong in noting this is a common feature of particular swearwords, shit, cunt, fuck, cock etc all are centuries old. “Gay” meaning “homosexual” and not happy? Relatively recent. “Nice” meaning “pleasant” and not “neatly in its place”, a good bit older, but no where as old as “cunt”. If you’re truly interested in how language evolves and how meanings and usage evolves then you simply cannot assert the universality of your cultural context in the way you are for an ambiguous phrase.

For “cunt” it works. Cunt refers to the female genitals, referring to someone as a cunt explicitly and implicitly references widely existing cultural misogyny by comparing a person to those genitals. It is an insult. Even the passive aggressive “you’re a funny cunt aren’t you” delivered pleasantly is far from the edge of ambiguity. “Cunt as insult” is unambiguous. It’s reference clear, it’s implications stark. That’s simply not the case for “my darling” NOT as insult. NOT as patronising aside. NOT as verbal punch in the arm. The words simply don’t have that same force, that same meaning, that same history, that same context.

Can they? SURE! Can =/= do =/= is. I’ve admitted to can. I’ve apologised for (unintended, not magic) can. Can is perhaps the road more travelled.

But the road more travelled doesn’t negate other less travelled roads. There are no other roads for “cunt as insult”, there are other roads for “cunt” (vulgar word for women’s genitals and a particular favourite of an ex-girlfriend of mine in dirty talk as it happens). They might all reference the shock value, the taboo nature of the word, they might not, but “cunt as insult” has unambiguous implications.

If I was using “my darling” as an insult, you’d have got not a shred of argument from me. You’ve got no shred of argument from me that it can be seen to be insulting. You have a massive amount of argument from me if you are claiming, as I think you are, it is necessarily so absent of other context.

Dictionaries do not define words by the way. They reflect the usage of words. Words mean what they are used to mean. That’s why communication is fraught with peril. That’s why language evolves. Dictionaries do not contain holotypes of a species, they contain historical references to word usage. They are inevitably out of date. The criterion for inclusion in a dictionary IS usage.

Context matters here too. My use of the word “right” can be to acknowledge the correctness of something, which way I should turn my car, or a principle of fundamental social justice I think should be adhered to. Snipping my “right” from its proper context or pointing at the dictionary and saying “right” means THIS definition is to deliberately ignore context. Context that provides a clue as to meaning, context that decided what sense of the word “right” I am using.

What you are doing with “my darling” is ignoring the (now vast amount of) context I am trying to provide you with, not to exculpate myself, I’m content with being culpated thanks ;-) , but to show you that I specifically disagree with a claim you are implicitly/explicitly making to various degrees. You are snipping my “my darling” from its context, context I have taken great pains to clarify, and plopping it down in context of your very very own. That is not right. And by right I mean correct, not the opposite of left. ;-)

“Cunt as insult” don’t work that way, hence why I think you are making the same category error Brownian did.

You’re trying to claim I was saying “my darling” in the same way as “you cunt”, when it’s far from clear I was. It could be the case, it isn’t. “My darling” has a level of ambiguity not associated with “you cunt”. That doesn’t preclude LILAPWL or any gay man from finding “my darling” as a diminutive etc offensive, far, far from it, what it does mean is that it has to be established that that use is what’s happening. The onus is not solely on the gay man/LILAPWL to do this of course (as should be implicit from this, by extension). But in communication where ambiguity is possible BOTH parties need to attempt clarity of communication and of understanding, it’s not a one way street and it’s not clearly delineated along lines of oppressor/oppressed.

By the way, as an aside to that oppressor/oppressed angle, I am “out” here as (Kinsey 1 to 3) bisexual and polygamous and kinky to the same extent LILAPWL is “out” as homosexual, I’ve written extensively on it here recently. It’s not a fashion statement, not a convenient label it’s WHO I AM. I make fuck all apology for it.

Whatever my non-Pharyngula outness is is irrelevant. It’s different for different people as it happens. A few trusted people at work know, for example, because they’ve encountered aspects of it, most don’t because I have sufficient 100% straight-appearing privilege IN REAL LIFE (i.e. not here) to permit ambiguity by not making an issue of it. It’s not anyone’s business unless I choose to share. Where my cock goes is not relevant to my work. If it comes up, I am disgustingly frank and unabashed. It doesn’t often come up. Is that dishonest of me? yes. Is it contributory to a culture of homophobia? Yes. Is it hypocritical? yes. Am I sticking my head above the parapet to have it shot off? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I’m allowed to pick my battles thanks. Walk a mile in my shoes before you tell me which battles to fight. My principles cannot always be matched by my actions, I have to kneel to the great god Pragma once in a while.

LILAPWL’s, and your (plural), claims (inadvertently?) casting me as “Oppressor here on Pharyngula” is to ignore THAT context too. As is ignoring the countless number of times I have made EXACTLY the arguments you are now making in against clear sexist, homophobes, ableists, racists and sundry other overt pillocks. You are ignoring an enormous amount of context to justify a specific interpretation of specific words that can be both ambiguous and innocent (as amply demonstrated), a specific interpretation that relies on you ignoring that context and importing your own. I’m not claiming to be without sin, far from it, I’m not claiming that the burden of noting my sins rest on you, it doesn’t, I’m claiming that in your arguments you have to ignore that, and many other, contextual aspects to force the argument you are making though.

I could be pissed off about that. I could be offended. This morning, I’m not. Because I really do grasp how I have inadvertently fucked up myself, and I’ve repeatedly apologised for that (largely ignored thus far).

4. I can’t believe I’m seeing people who’ve been through ElevatorGate playing “intent is magic” and “but it doesn’t mean that in England” (note: I am NOT talking about Louis. He gets this. Some of you don’t).

That, and blaming the person who said “don’t do that” when things got blown out of proportion. What the fuck is wrong with people indeed.

Just get one thing straight, whatever you believe, YOU DO NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR ME.

Is that abundantly clear? You know I think you are a prince among men, a chocolate chip in the biscuit barrel of life, but don’t EVER speak for me.

As I have EXTENSIVELY explained you are importing YOUR OWN cultural views over mine. You don’t get to do that. This is not as unambiguous as you are presenting it. This is not elevatorgate, this is not “cunt as insult”. It is categorically different. As explained. A lot.

I didn’t read LILAPWL’s chastisement of me as “Guys don’t do that”. As I’ve said repeatedly now, certainly enough times for you to have noticed it by #107 in this thread, I am not objecting to “guys don’t do that” in any way. I’ve already acknowledged and apologised for and said “I won’t do that” to the “guys don’t do that angle”. What is clear to YOU is not clear to ME. Not because I’m dumb or your dumb but because we view the phrase and my use of it from very different places. See my comment to Bill D above. Especially the bit about “pal”.

Did I respond to LILAPWL intemperately? Yes. Have I already acknowledged and apologised for that way before your #107? Yes. Have I apologised for not making my pre-existing understanding of the whole “guys don’t do that angle” (something you’ve seen me demonstrate a few hundred times by the way) manifestly clear earlier? YES YES YES.

Oh and on the trust thing, I GOT IT when LILAPWL chastised me, if “it” refers to an elevatorgate-esque “guys don’t do that”. Did I fuck up by being an intemperate arse and basically telling him to fuck himself? YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!!

Did I fuck up by not making my “getting it” clear and losing my rag with someone I consider(ed) to be playing a convenient card (rightly or wrongly) in order to distract from a previous discussion? YES YES YES A THOUSAND AND ONE TIMES YES!!!!!!

Have I apologised for all of that? No. Fuck you all, eat a steaming bowl of my shi…

….wait, it’s YES isn’t it? Can I have a thousand and two times yes? ;-)

I read LILAPWL’s chastisement as going beyond “guys don’t do that”. “Guys don’t do that” is as unobjectionable a chastisement to me as possible. I am a guy who occasionally “does that”. And says so, and recognises it, and apologises for it. “Guys don’t do that” is a simple objection to an unambiguous offence. THIS IS NOT THAT. Have I apologised for accidental toe treading? Yes.

Do I think use of “my darling” is an unambiguous, universal toe tread, verbal arm punch, diminutive, inappropriate intimacy, or whatever, even to you Brownian? NO. It is not “cunt”, it is not “approaching someone in an elevator after repeatedly being told the approach is unwelcome”. It’s not that cut and dried. As I’ve explained. Again. A lot.

Do you see how that’s a separate (and largely unaddressed) issue? Largely unaddressed because people are peachy keen to rush to inform me of what we all already know by heart: unintentional offence can be, and has been, given. Words can do damage unintended. Acknowledges and apologised for. I’m disagreeing with a different thing, what I perceive to be a universalist claim. And my perception of that is NO LESS CORRECT than LILAPWL’s or anyone’s perception that I was potentially, inadvertently delivering Bill D’s verbal punch or over familiar intimacy, diminutive term, or insult.

I don’t get to say “my darling” to a woman or a gay man? Sorry BUT IN SOME CONTEXTS I DO. It’s not as unambiguous as you are making out. Was I right to do so here? NO. Have I apologised for that? YES. I assumed a degree of understanding of context clearly not present. Interestingly some here do seem to get it despite Pathological Americanness. ;-)

This isn’t as tetchy/irritated as it might sound by the way. I’m running on 2 hrs sleep, a 2 hour run, sore legs and low caffeine. Any intemperateityness is entirely accidental!

No I didn’t. I said I believed him to be untrustworthy (rightly or wrongly) in that thread on that subject. That’s very different and very limited. In fact I’ve said the polar opposite several times if you’ve been paying attention. I think LILAPWL is a good “canary in the mine” for this kind of fucked-up-ness. I’ve agreed with his chastisement of me several times. He was right then and he’s, partially, right now. As acknowledged and apologised for within those limits.

The apparent convenience of his timing might be leading me to make a false positive. It might not. Guess what, LILAPWL is human too. His being gay doesn’t magically protect him from being dishonest or an arsehole. Neither does my being (Kinsey 1 to 3) bi so prevent me. It’s an irrelevance. External factors to the argument in hand apply to him as much as to me, who’s to say the choice to make his chastisement of me, and its specific phraseology, are not something to do with his personal dislike of ME (if such exists)?

People are nailing their colours to my mast. Don’t do that. None of you speak for me.

Oh and ‘Tis doesn’t speak for me either. NONE of you do. If I tell you that LILAPWL got the reaction I would have likely given anyone who used those words yesterday, you can chose to believe me or not. I’d have been more shocked (my word) by Josh reacting that way than LILAPWL not because I like Josh more or less but because I would consider, based on experience and context, that Josh would react differently. He’d be more disposed to a charitable interpretation of my words. And as such I’d be more disposed to a charitable interpretation of his chastisement. I think, perhaps wrongly, Josh would have asked the question, at least of himself “is this a quaint and obscure Anglicism?”, LILAPWL didn’t, he plumbed straight for a very culturally specific interpretation (or perhaps set of interpretations, I’m not saying it’s unreasonable that he did so, far from it actually), and applied it globally. And is still doing so as are others.

And not a single fuck will be given by anyone anywhere with anything resembling a brain. ;-)

Let them hoggle. Let them think me an arsehole, LILAPWL an arsehole, everyone arseholes. We get to disagree about things. I’m not tempering my disagreement because an onlooker with a dishonest agenda might come across all moist and unnecessary.

That’s giving in to terrorists (or is it tourists?) and we don’t do that.

And by we I mean me and my exceedingly sore testicles. Chafing, the sign that my shorts were not on properly at seven this morning. TMI?

1. Louis was wrong. Not in what he initially said, but in doubling down. I would have had SG’s back too.

2. Louis recognized that and apologized.

3. While it’s understandable that people treat the same argument differently depending on the person it is most certainly not ethical or a state of affairs to be desired.

4. I can’t believe I’m seeing people who’ve been through ElevatorGate playing “intent is magic” and “but it doesn’t mean that in England” (note: I am NOT talking about Louis. He gets this. Some of you don’t).

What the bleeding fuck is wrong with you? Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You know what — don’t answer. Just shut up. I’ve had about enough of having to cross people off my Reasonable Person register.

But you deserve a reply!

1) Agreed to an extent. I have doubled down one way whilst making a separate (but I think correct) point another way. That is my bad. I fucked up. I doubled down over both parts, wrongly and unintentionally (not magic, but true) on the “Guys don’t do it” angle, intentionally and STILL (and dammit rightly! ;-) )on the linguistic angle.

2) No I didn’t I deny this utterly…oh…erm…wait…I did do that. Does that make me Wrong On The Internet? Should I now commit suicide or something? Or is being Wrong On The Internet not actually, you know, a big deal? ;-)

3) Agreed. Where and if I have done that I am wrong to have done so and apologise unreservedly.

4) I don’t know who else you could be talking about, meh, I’m sleep deprived I wouldn’t know if you hit me with a building, but I do get it! I really really do! I really really also fucked up by not making that abundantly clear earlier and with a fucktonne less irritation and snark.

Oh and this is not an answer. Can I still be on the Reasonable Person List?

Yup I know that, I got the impression that others were…unclear…on the matter. I’m trying to establish I’m in a camp of one, not a gang of Evil LILAPWL Persecutors™. (Not that you are either necessarily but…oh fuck you know what I’m trying to say, right?)

Like I said, I don’t think LILAPWL is always as you describe, but I’d be lying if I failed to acknowledge I did/do have precisely those suspicions (rightly or wrongly) in the previous thread.

The comment section of your blog has largely been taken over by a dishonest, hypocritical gang of bullies. They apparently won’t be satisfied until they scapegoat, pile on, and drive sg (and anyone who calls them out on or defends themselves against their bullshit) away.

Hilarious. It’s like the Italian Mafia being muscled out of the city by the Russian Mafia, so they go to the police and start crying about being victimized by these criminals!

P.S. Serious I am not. Really, biggest lips on earth? Oh fuck….sleep deprived brain is coming up with jokes. Must restrain the jokes. My wife’s cousin’s dog (now deceased) had the biggest balls I’d ever seen on a dog. When we were in India a littler cousin asked his dad and I why the dog was licking his (i.e. the dog’s own*) balls. It was an hour before I could breathe properly again. To his credit, the dad did get “because he can” out between shrieks of laughter.

What a diverting and procrastinatory read this cross-thread drama has been this morning.
Louis, I know that somewhere you apologized, and that’s cool, and it’s not my non-magical intention to beat a dead horse (no offense or actual violence meant to dead horses), but since, if I am not mistaken, you regard me as a weaselly dogpiling shitstirrer, I just want to point out that the actual nonmagical intention of my comment was not to stir the already well-mixed shit, but rather to allude to the exact parallels between your earlier spirited defense of calling people ‘cunts’ and the hole you were engaged in digging there with the ‘darling’ thing. You want to emphasize the difference between intrinsically gendered terms (a lesson you evidently learned truly and well enough to be accepted by the metaphorical Russian Mafia) and unisex stuff like ‘my darling’, and it’s a valid distinction, but there’s a larger, nonfeminist issue here.
This:

It’s an affectation, a local colour, a figure of speech a….I don’t know how many different ways I can say the same damned thing!

is the point. It’s exactly what you said about ‘cunt’ back in the day, and the response is the same: So what? Colloquial quirkiness just doesn’t work in text on the internationalnet. I realize that your schtick is the charmingly self-deprecatory Brit, but Pharyngula just isn’t the Shire.

Oh and argument is narcissism now? This from the drama llama who dramatically quit, asked people to tell him to fuck off if he returned and now has returned to stir the pot. Colour me unimpressed.

Am I not allowed to be wrong about one thing, correct that, and also be right about another?

I wasn’t wrong about cunt because of the “parochial colloquialism” thing, I was wrong because I misapplied something to a word that just didn’t have the degree of ambiguity this does.

Also, you continue to misunderstand, my previous argument was explicitly not that people calling each other “cunts” was defensible (in fact I took pains to say this a few times IIRC) but to note that it wasn’t universally misogynist. A subtlety that escapes you I note. AGAIN. I was wrong then, it is universally misogynist, this isn’t. There are differences! Woohoo! Shades of grey. How terrible of me to appreciate them.

Who the fuck cares fuckwit? I’ll use you as the abject fool Heinlein says to ask, and take the opposite tack. Or maybe not. Wisdom can also be one being too tired to get involved. You do have your uses for clarifying idiocy, by making the village idjit look intelligent.

If you harm somebody, then intent does not magically fix the harm. Injury has happened, regardless of intent. Intent provides no magical fix. What intent does do, however, is establish the difference between accident and assault; manslaughter and murder; slip-up and slimepit.

Thank you for saying this. It follows that “the difference between accident and assault; manslaughter and murder; slip-up and slimepit” matters because it affects (or ought to) what you do next.

I’ve made it more than clear that on the issue of “guys don’t do that” I’m on board. I’ve acknowledged it repeatedly, apologised, and will not be doing it again.

I’ve also made it abundantly clear that I don’t consider LILAPWL’s comments or yours (or those of other’s) to be limited to “guys don’t do that”.* Not because I want some magical “out”, I don’t have one, I’ve already admitted my culpability and errors several times. If you can’t treat that as an honest disagreement and deal with what I’ve actually said as opposed to trying to be cute about things, it’s not really my fault is it?

Louis

* Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”. I presume you’d agree with the first sentence (guys don’t do that) but not the second. Ok, so what you and LILAPWL are saying is not that stark or blatantly erroneous, but what I am trying to explain is I got something not a million miles from that from LILAPWL’s original complaint and continue to get it from you. I am agreeing to the first bit repeatedly and without reservation, and disagreeing with something like the second bit.

Usually I think his calling out of prejudicial terms is spot on, even when I’m the culprit. I don’t think that’s entirely the case here and I really don’t think it’s the case for some of the dog pilers.

This “dog pilers” stuff, what do you think it means? Do you think that anyone besides Chas and Hyperon were getting involved because of anything but SIWOTI? Do you think there’s something immoral about arguing because SIWOTI? I ask because you compared them to bullies — who exactly you’re talking about, that isn’t entirely clear, but it sounds like it might be everyone who argued with you about this except for me.

Well I need you to understand this, Louis, this comment from me you apparently found a bit eye-opening, I could not have made it; I could not have continuted speaking up for myself without getting some reassuring signal from the community here that it really is okay for a gay man to insist he should not be called darling.

If it was just me and you arguing about this, I would have long ago given up trying to get you to understand. Because that’s the way it usually works. That’s the way I’m accustomed to. I don’t get to say “don’t call me that, that’s homophobic” without being mocked and trashed for it. What you did, blaming me for being hurt, is the same thing that always happens in daily life but normally there isn’t anyone else around who understands why I’m upset so I just give up.

Like I said, I don’t think LILAPWL is always as you describe, but I’d be lying if I failed to acknowledge I did/do have precisely those suspicions (rightly or wrongly) in the previous thread. […]

The apparent convenience of his timing might be leading me to make a false positive. It might not. Guess what, LILAPWL is human too. His being gay doesn’t magically protect him from being dishonest or an arsehole.

It’s only the most ridiculous myside bias that lets you keep going with this hypothesis in the face of evidence to the contrary, and no evidence in your favor.

Evidence that I was being honest: I briefly told you not to call me darling, and then in the very same comment I went right back to the discussion about Hutchinson that I’d hoped we’d continue. If I only wanted to win by playing “the gay card” as you put it, why would I give you such an easy opportunity to say okay sorry, now, about Hutchinson…? — Why would I have continued trying to direct the discussion to Hutchinson’s writing at all?

Evidence that I was not being honest: none.

Your continuing to entertain this failed hypothesis is downright crankish.

Josh would react differently. He’d be more disposed to a charitable interpretation of my words.

My interpretation of your words was 100% charitable. I told you not to say them to me, and I gave you a reason I thought you would understand. You want to claim I wasn’t being charitable? Quotes or it didn’t happen.

* Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”.

He didn’t fucking say that, you stupid fucking asshole.

Don’t speak to ME like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.

DO YOU SEE THE CONTEXT NOW? HINT, FUCKFACE, IT’S THE PART I BOLDED AND ITALICISED FOR THE FUCKING ENGLISH READERS IN THE AUDIENCE.

No?

Then maybe I’m wrong. Highlight the part where it says “regardless of context” for me.

Okay, right off the bat there’s the assumption that what I did to LILAPWL was a “verbal punch in the arm”. That’s an assumption that’s at the heart of where you (plural, perhaps Americans) are going wrong.

It was not a punch in the arm, verbal, friendly, unfriendly or anything of that type.

Oh, dear; figurative language FAIL on my part. I was not characterizing what you said as a “verbal punch in the arm”; rather, I was using that image to attempt to characterize a level of friendship/casual personal familiarity in the context of which things that might otherwise be taken as offensive or assaulting are instead seen as expected and just good fun. It’s easy to imagine male friends of that sort calling each other darling (or sweetie or honey or even girlfriend) without it leading to anything other than laughter and another round of beers.

The point I was trying to make was that no such personal relationship was in place as a predicate for your comment to lilapwl.

***

Yeah. That’s not how Louis used it.

Erm, sorry, but yes it is.

Erm, sorry, but no it isn’t

Just get one thing straight, whatever you believe, YOU DO NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR ME.

You’re absolutely right: None of us gets to speak for you, or to presume we know your inner intentions. But we do get to comment on the record before us, and here’s a quick summary: In the middle of what was already a fairly intense and long-running disagreement with another man with whom you have no real personal connection or ties of friendship, you called him darling, an appellation you had not previously applied to him up to that point.

Only in absurdist theatre could that be construed as a “pass the scones, love” sort of usage, and certainly you couldn’t have had any reasonable expectation that it would be received that way.

You got exasperated with lilawpl (as many of us have at some time or another), and you elevated the emotive/sarcastic character of your language. That much seems clear from the record, regardless of your conscious intent.

But dude, this has been thoroughly hashed, and you’ve apologized to the person who was put out; why have you not observed the First Rule of Holes™?

* Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”.

That is incorrect. Some people (in England no doubt) use that word as an affectionate term for each other, so it is not “bad everywhere”.

Oh for fu…. ;-)

I’ve explained why this is not what I’m saying. Particularly in my reply to Bill D above.

“Cunt” as an insult unambiguously refers to female genitalia as “bad”. Note, not “cunt” in every single possible context, “cunt” in the sense of an insult.

Two false assumptions are being made about “my darling”:

a) That it was an insult or has to be an insult/punch in the arm etc etc etc.

b) That it has specific, unambiguous implications of over familiar intimacy or diminutive or whatever.

I am disagreeing with both of those for a variety of reasons, not simply “it can be used affectionately”.

Note again, I am not disagreeing it can be all of those things, and I have apologised again and again for not making my knowledge of that abundantly clear earlier and with less annoyance. I can’t make that error go away I can only apologise for it.

By the way, as an aside to that oppressor/oppressed angle, I am “out” here as (Kinsey 1 to 3) bisexual and polygamous and kinky to the same extent LILAPWL is “out” as homosexual, I’ve written extensively on it here recently. It’s not a fashion statement, not a convenient label it’s WHO I AM. I make fuck all apology for it.

Actually, I’m out. You’re simply not trying to understand where I’m coming from, and you clearly don’t. I’ve made every concession it’s possible to make and tried to make clear what I am disagreeing with and why and it just gets ignored.

It would be precisely because I read that as what you were in part saying. Not because you or I are some how stupid, but because I was coming at it from a very different perspective to you.

Even Bill D is simply ignoring that “my darling” can be every bit as innocent as “pass the scones, love”. If you’re just going to insist YOUR (plural) interpretation of a phrase is binding universally when it’s derived from YOUR cultural context(s) and nothing more, then you’re just ignoring what I’ve been saying.

None of which exculpates my fuck ups or modifies my apologies by the way. I’m still wrong to have said it to you, I’m still wrong to have gotten angry and doubled down about it, I’m still apologetic about all of it. I won’t be doing it again.

But pretending YOUR interpretations and intents are magic and eviscerating someone who is not claiming theirs are for doing so is… Buggered if I know, it’s not good. You’re not the only one without a view from nowhere.

a) That it was an insult or has to be an insult/punch in the arm etc etc etc.

You were having a disagreement in which you were yelling at your opponent. It’s all right there preserved in your comment. That is the context. And now you expect us to believe it was not said insultingly?

1) Other people besides myself were involved in the discussion not out of a desire to bully you but because they just thought you were wrong.

2) There is no evidence to suggest I was dishonestly “playing the gay card”, and there is evidence to the contrary.

3) I didn’t accuse you of anything when I said “don’t speak to me like that.” I was being charitable by giving you an explanation I thought you would understand for why I don’t want to be called darling, and I said nothing about your intention.

Your perception of “yelling” might be different from mine. Not because I’m English-ish but because I’m not you. Your perception of my anger/irritation is not binding on me. You are importing your own notions of my intemperateness to form an assumption.

I did that, I’m probably wrong as LILAPWL claims above. I assumed LILAPWL was playing a silly game, not being honest, I’ve seen it done by people before. IF I am wrong about that, and LILAPWL thinks it likely I am, THEN I was definitely wrong to act as I did. Even IF I am not wrong about that, THEN I am ALSO wrong to act as I did.

It would be precisely because I read that as what you were in part saying.

No, no, no. I in fact did not say “don’t do that. Oh and by the way all calling gay men ‘darling’ is always sexist regardless of context”.

So your hypothetical should be:

Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that.” But some people interpreted her to be saying “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”.

+++++

But pretending YOUR interpretations and intents are magic and eviscerating someone who is not claiming theirs are for doing so is… Buggered if I know, it’s not good. You’re not the only one without a view from nowhere.

Even Bill D is simply ignoring that “my darling” can be every bit as innocent as “pass the scones, love”.

SRSLY? Have you not yet read me@200, or did you comprehenisvely fail to comprehend it?

I have said quite clearly, several times, that I understand there are conditions under which my darling can be “every bit as innocent” as pass the scones, love, and I have (also several times) explored what some of those conditions might be.

Can you truly not see that those conditions don’t obtain in this case?

Oddly, when I first chimed in on this subject, back in the other thread, I was much more sympathetic to your side than I have become as you’ve continued to “explain” yourself. You are really not doing yourself any favors.

I’m not sure I disagreed with this globally, but I certainly think there were pilers-on as well as honest disagreers. Maybe I’m wrong. If I’m wrong about that, why are other people incapable of being wrong about me?

2) Not entirely agreed. Your timing could be seen that way (i.e. as evidence). You could be seen to have distracted from a claim you could not support to a make a claim you felt you could. You could have cried “wolf”. People do do these things dishonestly. Now if you want to claim you didn’t, tell you what, I’ll simply take you at your word. My bad, I apologise for the claim of dishonesty and I was wrong to make it. None of that changes the fact that I was merely explaining why I did certain things as opposed to excusing them.

3) I think I’ve already agreed to this. The particular way you phrased it, and the circumstances under which you said it, lead me (perhaps erroneously) to think you were making a far more extensive claim than merely “guys don’t do that”. Really. I honestly thought that. Subsequent posts from you and others have reinforced reading, not damaged it.

Again, whilst I am cheerfully acknowledging and admitting to errors, you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from “guys don’t do that”. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you. THAT isn’t good.

OK, Louis. I looked at that comment and didn’t see anything particularly friendly about it. No smilies or something that would show you were joking around in the opening, lots of hyperbole to show how stupid your opponent was for not seeing the obvious, caps-locks on possessive pronouns, finishing up with an emphatic “fucking”, and no congenial parting. So if you weren’t insulting him with my darling, then that is virtually unsupported by the rest of the comment.

Can you truly not see that those conditions don’t obtain in this case?

THAT is your assumption. Or rather one of them. LILAPWL and I are not exactly unacquainted with each other, nor are we in some formal debating hall. It was a colloquial conversation where I made an innocent colloquial phrasing. You’re either willing to believe that or not. You’re either willing to understand that you are importing your (plural) cultural context onto something that wasn’t coming from that cultural context.

I get that, I really do. I can see how you would get that, I really do. What I’m trying to get across is just because you get that it doesn’t make it so. Like I said, you are presuming more things than you can know. Perhaps because what I’m saying is outside your experience, perhaps not, I simply don’t know.

What I do know is that it is not as clear cut as you wish to make it.

Again, doesn’t exculpate me. LILAPWL was not unreasonable in reading my comment that way, and my immediate subsequent reaction did nothing to dissuade him or anyone from that opinion. As I’ve apologised for, repeatedly.

Don’t speak to ME like that. The same reason you don’t say that to women you’re not on diminutive terms with, is the reason not to apply it to gay men who aren’t on those terms with you.

I’ll repeat it simply because you’ve ignored it.

Cornish farmer in a field says to passing woman or (not obviously) gay man or (not obviously) heterosexual man who asks for directions “Roight moi darlin’ you go left”. Is that diminutive/overly familiar/whatever UNIVERSALLY or merely diminutive/overly familiar/whatever TO THEM (if they choose to take it that way or are from a culture where it would be seen that way)?

In other words even though it could be all those things, and therefore cause perfectly justified offence, could it also be NOT those things?

I agreed it could be all those things. I apologised for wrongly giving the impression that I meant all those things. I apologised for offending/treading on toes/whatever. I apologised for reacting intemperately to LILAPWL’s comment. I apologised for all that and more. Is it really so hard for you to grasp a simple point of logic that the use of this term is not as clear cut as you think it is based simply on your cultural context being different from mine?

I’m not sure I disagreed with this globally, but I certainly think there were pilers-on as well as honest disagreers.

Who?

2) Not entirely agreed. Your timing could be seen that way (i.e. as evidence).

The timing is because that’s when you called me darling. Go back and look at how Aratina Cage initially felt about it. Okay? You’ve got independent peer-review from another gay man in the USA about how offensive that kind of talk is.

Timing.

It’s not like I saw you casually driving your 1920 N.A.G. Darling down the boulevard and I ran to throw myself in front of it.

Again, whilst I am cheerfully acknowledging and admitting to errors, you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from “guys don’t do that”. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you. THAT isn’t good.

What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.

You’ve got independent peer-review from another gay man in the USA about how offensive that kind of talk is.

And have I disputed that it could be? No. Have I disputed that it undeniably is in all contexts including this one? Yes. Have I said that perhaps, just perhaps, your understanding of the context in which I was using that phrase is different from my own? Yes.

I’m not providing quotes or naming names because I’m sick of the bullshit drama, you and I both know it’s all there because I’m bloody repeating myself. Go and read, I’m sick of playing games with people that simply don’t want to address what I am saying as an argument rather than a series of snippets that further misconception.

Just answer this question:

Given that I have repeatedly apologised and conceded that what I said could be taken the way you took it, and that it was wrong of me and that I won’t do it again etc, can you see that it isn’t necessarily that way, that the phrase is less clear cut in its implications and nature than you have taken it and that this is a separate issue?

You’ve got independent peer-review from another gay man in the USA about how offensive that kind of talk is.

And have I disputed that it could be? No.

Not relevant to my point. You said my “timing” could be evidence I was speaking dishonestly.

I’m asking you to consider 1) what the fuck other timing could I have had? 2) The fact that another gay man saw it similarly should strongly suggest that my “timing” was not “timing” at all.

Given that I have repeatedly apologised and conceded that what I said could be taken the way you took it, and that it was wrong of me and that I won’t do it again etc, can you see that it isn’t necessarily that way, that the phrase is less clear cut in its implications and nature than you have taken it and that this is a separate issue?

Frankly I am tired of you claiming that I’m saying it’s more clear cut than I’ve actually said.

Or again: “What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.”

What I’m trying to get across is just because you get that it doesn’t make it so.

While I hear you on this, it seems like it could be easily abused. For instance, the next time some fresh face on Pharyngula calls a woman the B-word or says something that implies that, should we have to give equal consideration to the possibility that even though it looks like an insult, it might have been meant affectionately? After all, maybe he just really likes dogs–or science memes.

Like I said, you are presuming more things than you can know. Perhaps because what I’m saying is outside your experience, perhaps not, I simply don’t know.

And like I said, “OK, Louis”. I accept you held no ill will toward life is like a pitbull with lipstick when you called him your darling (and that the anger that comes off later in the same comment is something that built up as you kept writing). It wasn’t a dogwhistle or a barb. And if it isn’t too much trouble, please try to leave a somewhat obvious clue that you are being friendly next time you call someone your darling before you start tearing into them. KThnxBye

If you don’t concede you’ve taken the matter to be more clear cut in its implications and nature than I claim, do you agree that it is perfectly possible to innocently and without diminutive/inappropriate over familiarity/whatever connotations* for a heterosexual man to use the phrase “my darling” to a woman or gay man they are unacquainted with?

You can assume the gay man is wearing a t-shirt saying “I am a gay man” if it helps. That’s not snark, I’m trying to say the heterosexual man knows the gay man is gay.

Louis

* I.e. purely as a verbal flourish or a stylistic matter or as part of a “local accent” etc.

Okay I’ll try again! I think I’ve done this a few times now, but I’m hallucinating purple badgers due to sleep deprivation at the moment. ;-)

{The above is hyperbole for the purpose of comedy. This disclaimer is not snark, it’s self deprecating humour. I realise I have been less than clear and again, I apologise}

What is a “bitch”? It’s a female dog, right. How is “bitch” used as an insult? To derogate a female person by comparison to a female dog or a man by comparison to those awful awful women. (Joke) And various other connotations, all negative all to do with some caricature of femininity (excessive, baseless complaining etc).

There’s not an innocent use of bitch as an insult. It’s explicitly making reference to the “female as negative” idea.

If I’d said “Then, bitch, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” as opposed to “Then, my darling, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” there would be zero disagreement from me about anything. As already stated. Bitch is an unambiguous female referent in that context, my darling isn’t. Or at least that I am trying to say is that it isn’t clear cut that it IS. I’m also trying to get across that, as you note, referring to LILAPWL as “bitch” is unambiguously insulting, referring to him as “my darling” is not unambiguously insulting although as noted it could easily be. Hence why I have both apologised for my using that term because it could easily be insulting, and I did not want to insult LILAPWL (I have better ways to do that) AND disagreed that it is a clear cut insult with clear cut implications, which is what is being argued by many.

You’ve got independent “peer review” (although unlike you I won’t elevate someone’s agreement with something I said to those lofty heights) from Caine that what I said could easily be seen as exactly the verbal flourish I say it is.

Of course you can dismiss her comment as biased though, right?

In all of this I might be wrong, I acknowledge this freely and again without reservation. In many cases I have been wrong, and tried to consider things from a perspective and cultural context not my own. Is it so troubling for you to do the same?

do you agree that it is perfectly possible to innocently and without diminutive/inappropriate over familiarity/whatever connotations* for a heterosexual man to use the phrase “my darling” to a woman or gay man they are unacquainted with?

I honestly do not know. I am not an anthropologist.

Once again, the reason I gave you the comparison with women was because I thought you would have some habit already of not talking to women that way. All I wanted to do was get you to realize you should expand that habit to gay men.

It didn’t work, so I asked you instead to “take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.”

I stopped talking about precisely when it might be appropriate a long time ago in internet time. Last night, I stopped! Said I didn’t want to talk about it anymore.

Here I wake up and see that in the meantime, after you apologized, you started calling me dishonest again. No way I can stay out of it anymore. Great.

And then you think that I owe you some kind of answer when I already asked you to just go ahead and caveat it however necessary for you to just get it already, on whatever terms can be meaningful to you?

When you won’t even answer my earlier question: what am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance?

Absurd.

I want no part of your when is it appropriate party. I backed out of that at comment #2. Leave me out of it.

Neither am I last time I looked. I was unaware that acknowledging someone else’s cultural context was dependent on professional anthropological qualifications. That’s going to make talking to my parents and my in laws awfully tricky…

Yes that IS sarcasm! Not mean sarcasm, incredulous sarcasm.

Once again, the reason I gave you the comparison with women was because I thought you would have some habit already of not talking to women that way. All I wanted to do was get you to realize you should expand that habit to gay men.

And once again that reason is derived from the assumption that your cultural context is sufficiently similar to mine as to make that overlap sufficiently well. It isn’t, it doesn’t. As I’ve explained at length. Rocket science this ain’t.

And you’re not getting the dishonest thing are you. I have what I consider to be a reasonable degree of scepticism about your honesty on this issue for a variety of reasons I’ve explained. Either accept that or not. I could infer you have the same idea about me because you’re simply not addressing the ONLY thing I am disagreeing about.

Look back at my #213. In fact look at every time I’ve mentioned your honesty, the bulk if not all of them will have the caveat “rightly or wrongly” after them. Or some such thing. I’ve admitted the possibility of my making a false positive here. I’ve even agreed to simply take your word that that’s not what you are doing (#213) absent anything else.

The reason I mention it is as a further explanation (not excuse) of why I was so severely intemperate.

You say to me (which you have I think) “Louis that ain’t what I did” and I say “okay”, apologise, end of story. If you question how I could reasonably have come to that conclusion subsequent to that, which you have, then I’ll explain, which I have. Again none of that changes my apology, the fact that I’m cheerfully taking your word and thus wrong. Until of course you make it obvious that I am wrong to be so generous. Which of course you’re not going to do are you?

So please, take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible.

Again, whilst I am cheerfully acknowledging and admitting to errors, you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from “guys don’t do that”. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you. THAT isn’t good.

What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.

Just answer this question: Given that I have repeatedly apologised and conceded that what I said could be taken the way you took it, and that it was wrong of me and that I won’t do it again etc, can you see that it isn’t necessarily that way, that the phrase is less clear cut in its implications and nature than you have taken it and that this is a separate issue?

Frankly I am tired of you claiming that I’m saying it’s more clear cut than I’ve actually said. Or again: “What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.”

So despite every my apology and concession, despite every post trying to clarify context beyond your own, you won’t even answer a simple question. Well done. And you question why I am to varying degrees sceptical of you as being an honest interlocutor in this matter.

If I’d said “Then, bitch, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” as opposed to “Then, my darling, I apologise for questioning your motives. But you’ve still grossly misread me.” there would be zero disagreement from me about anything.

But some people use the word bitch as a friendly term. I know I have. The problem might be clearer to you if instead of bitch you had said biach. Would it then be friendly or insulting?

Bitch is an unambiguous female referent in that context

Not for all people in all English-speaking parts of the world. There really are people who use it to refer to their friends, often ironically. Just because you are not one of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

my darling isn’t. Or at least that I am trying to say is that it [darling] isn’t clear cut that it IS [unambiguously sexist].

I think I have shown above how even the word bitch could be claimed to have been ambiguous in your case. Anyway, that doesn’t matter since the context of your comment left little reason for some of us to guess that your use of darling was meant charmingly in a non-heterosexist manner. The context was key in your case. I’m glad you cleared it up.

I want no part of your when is it appropriate party. I backed out of that at comment #2. Leave me out of it.

Then don’t. That’s the only thing I am disagreeing with anyone about.

Oh and the question is not an exhaustive “when”, I’m not asking your permission, I don’t actually need to shocking though that concept might be to you, I’m asking something much simpler: “is it ever?”. It’s a yes or no question.

So to repeat my error from ages past:

Is it ever not misogynist to refer to an unacquainted someone, particularly a woman as “a cunt”? No it is not. I was wrong, lo those many years ago.

Is it ever not misogynist/homophobic to refer to an unacquainted someone, particularly a woman/gay man, as “my darling”? My answer is yes in specific circumstances, given a specific understanding of cultural context, it is not misogynist/homophobic.

I don’t want anyone’s permission, I am disagreeing with the implicit/explicit answers of “no” to that second question in a few poster’s comments. If I have (wrongly) taken you to be one of them, well I’ve already admitted I could be wrong about that and apologised, but the particular phrasing etc of various things you said lead me to believe I was not wrong. Not an excuse, not exculpation, EXPLANATION.

None of that changes that HERE I fucked up. I used the phrase in a way that could easily be misogynistic/homophobic. You are not wrong a) to read it that way, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to do so and b) to ask me not to do it. Hence why I have apologised profusely for a) and agreed to b).

Neither am I last time I looked. I was unaware that acknowledging someone else’s cultural context was dependent on professional anthropological qualifications.

I have never experienced what you claim exists. Other people from your country — and no, Hyperon doesn’t count, he’s of course totally useless — leave me wondering whether you understand the context properly.

So no, I cannot agree to what you are saying, because I do not know if it is true. I am also not arguing against it. I just do not know.

And once again that reason is derived from the assumption that your cultural context is sufficiently similar to mine as to make that overlap sufficiently well. It isn’t, it doesn’t. As I’ve explained at length. Rocket science this ain’t.

Sigh. That’s why I said “Like I said, I don’t like debating about homophobia. And I’ve done it more than I want to for the rest of this month. So please, take what I said already, insert the caveats you think are necessary, and read it as charitably as possible. I am done speaking up for myself on this matter.”

And you’re not getting the dishonest thing are you. I have what I consider to be a reasonable degree of scepticism about your honesty on this issue for a variety of reasons I’ve explained. Either accept that or not.

I could infer you have the same idea about me because you’re simply not addressing the ONLY thing I am disagreeing about.

I addressed it at #2.

I’ve even agreed to simply take your word that that’s not what you are doing (#213) absent anything else.

I don’t even understand what this could possibly mean when you follow it with “And you question why I am to varying degrees sceptical of you as being an honest interlocutor in this matter.”

It’s like, I accept that you are being honest, but but but oh I have these reasons for thinking you are dishonest.

I don’t even know what that means. It’s confused at best.

If you question how I could reasonably have come to that conclusion subsequent to that, which you have, then I’ll explain, which I have. Again none of that changes my apology, the fact that I’m cheerfully taking your word and thus wrong.

Then why did you say “There is zero appreciation of any nuance from” me? You pointed that at me and so I asked for quotes supporting it. You give no quotes, you just want to interrogate me in response.

Oh and the question is not an exhaustive “when”, I’m not asking your permission, I don’t actually need to shocking though that concept might be to you,

Do you think you’re being funny?

If I have (wrongly) taken you to be one of them, well I’ve already admitted I could be wrong about that and apologised, but the particular phrasing etc of various things you said lead me to believe I was not wrong. Not an excuse, not exculpation, EXPLANATION.

If I tell you that LILAPWL got the reaction I would have likely given anyone who used those words yesterday, you can chose to believe me or not.

I had inferred that when you said this:

I’d use precisely the same language to anyone regardless of sex, sexuality or any other complicating factor.

But of course, that’s not in any way a “universal” or “absolute” statement. And even though you’ve backed off from it and qualified it numerous times now in the course of your apologies, I’ll accept that you do believe that, if that’s actually what you want me to do.

Anyway, my point was that this charge of “untrustworthiness,” contextualized and nuanced as much as you like, does not justify your reaction or others’.

I didn’t say “use of bitch as irony” (or whatever) I said “use of bitch as insult”.

I’m not disputing there are other, more innocent uses, it’s a spectrum after all. But that spectrum occupies a different range than the similar spectrum for “my darling”. Also, you missed the part where the word “bitch” is still an unambiguous female referent. Like “cunt” or “twat”. “My darling” is not an unambiguous referent of anything like that. It can be a referent of that type, it isn’t necessarily so.

Compare like things, not unlike ones. LILAPWL’s original complaint was that I was referring to him, a gay man, in a diminutive (i.e. insulting) fashion that I would not refer to a similarly unacquainted woman in. I am disagreeing that it is unambiguous that I was referring to him in that insulting (diminutive) fashion (as you’ve noted and hence LILAPWL’s comments about caveats).

So the “insult” part is I hope clear. I understand how what I said came across that way. I disagree that that particular phrase makes it unambiguous. I think bitch, in that same context, WOULD be at least less ambiguous, and probably not ambiguous at all since referring to someone as “bitch” inescapably references the female/feminine. “My darling” doesn’t do that. It can, but not unambiguously so.

What you’re talking about above is intent, which as we both know ain’t magic. I’ve already acknowledged the fact that my intent weren’t magic! What I’m disputing is that my choice of phrase was necessarily insulting (which several people are claiming) as opposed to incidentally insulting. And had certain unambiguous implications. My intent, ironic or otherwise is a pleasurable aside, as noted, not the sum of my argument.

I don’t agree (for the reasons above) that substituting “bitch” is equal to what I said, intentions wouldn’t alter that. My disagreement is about the connotations of the word(s) not my intentions in using it.

It’s like, I accept that you are being honest, but but but oh I have these reasons for thinking you are dishonest.

NO! It’s like “I accept that you are being honest if you say you are, but these are the reasons I came to a different conclusion earlier and could come to a different conclusion in the future if my ‘generosity’ above is demonstrated to be inappropriate”.

I’m happy to believe you. I’m not happy to continue to believe you if you do something subsequently that makes it obvious I was wrong to believe you. Is that really as complicated as all that?

Anyway, time for a cease and desist, I think we’re talking past each other. As I’ve said, trawling back to provide a snippet here or there is not something I’m particularly interested in right this minute. Take that any way you want. You’re not particularly interested in having a specific conversation about the only damned thing I am disagreeing with anyone about (take Bill D and Brownian as examples if you wish). You’re not dealing with my arguments, only snippets that reinforce your existing misunderstandings (see for example your misreading at #201 of my #193, which was couched with sufficient caveats that you snipped to make a literalist reading of one part of that post when I was making a very specific extended analogy).

Any absurdity ain’t just mine. You’re quite obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than your own rather narrow one. That doesn’t help communication, but then neither does my being utterly knackered.

I’m happy to believe you. I’m not happy to continue to believe you if you do something subsequently that makes it obvious I was wrong to believe you. Is that really as complicated as all that?

Fuck you.

Responding to a “have you stopped beating your partner” type question by restating my own earlier question, the answer to which should indicate you don’t have evidence of ‘zero appreciation of any nuance’ on my part, is no indication of dishonesty.

Fuck you.

You made these fucking accusations about me. Specifically: “you and others are ignoring a swathe of stuff relevant to a separate claim from ‘guys don’t do that’. There is zero appreciation of any nuance from you.”

I asked for evidence of this.

You responded by saying that I was dishonest for not answering your question.

Fuck you.

Now I point out how absurd that is, and you respond by saying there’s no point in your trying to give any evidence of “zero appreciation of nuance” because I’m not interested in taking for granted your claim that there’s zero appreciation of nuance on my part.

Fuck you.

Any absurdity ain’t just mine. You’re quite obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than your own rather narrow one.

Ahem.

Where am I “obviously unwilling to consider this from any perspective other than [my] own”? Quotes, Louis. Quotes or it didn’t happen.

What am I saying that indicates zero appreciation of any nuance? Quotes, please.

You want to claim I wasn’t being charitable? Quotes.

+++++

Incidentally, I really do fucking resent the continual evidence free accusation from some quarters that this is about LILAPWL or his sexuality. It’s just so fucking tiresomely irrelevant and untrue.

And this was random, diversionary bullshit. Nobody at the time was making that accusation.

Your continued and egregious misunderstandings are not binding on me. You could read but seem to delight in playing some endless game of gotcha. I’m not so delighted and don’t care to play. Do and think as you will.

For fuck’s sake LILAPWL I did give you one example above and you simply ignored it.

What more do I need to think I am wasting my time with you? 20 examples? 200? (I’m not saying 20 or 200 exist btw)

Find it yourself. Read for comprehension YOURSELF. I could lead you to the water but I can’t make you think. And I’m not really disposed to lead you to the water right this second.

Like I said, take that any way you like (I’ve a good guess how you’ll do it actually, now don’t disappoint me) and do what you like. You can continue to type out replies to someone who is not willing to play your game all you like.

You’ve got hours for twenty screen missives on the conversational ins and outs of Cornish farmers, and now you’re playing coy?

What a fucking douchehole you are.

You’re not particularly interested in having a specific conversation about the only damned thing I am disagreeing with anyone about (take Bill D and Brownian as examples if you wish).

Remember how I used the word “both”, you stupid fucking dipshit?

Do you understand how that word does not mean “unambiguously one thing” and so that is not my claim in the least?

But, on to the only thing you care about, which is talking about yourself:

Cornish farmer in a field says to passing woman or (not obviously) gay man or (not obviously) heterosexual man who asks for directions “Roight moi darlin’ you go left”. Is that diminutive/overly familiar/whatever UNIVERSALLY or merely diminutive/overly familiar/whatever TO THEM (if they choose to take it that way or are from a culture where it would be seen that way)?

This is so useful. I don’t know how I’ve managed to live three-and-a-half decades without this clearly life-saving piece of knowledge, especially since I know a Cornishman here and all who has never once called me Darling, but that’s probably because I’VE NEVER BEEN ASKING A FUCKING CORNISH FARMER IN A FUCKING CORNISH FIELD FOR CORNISH FUCKING DIRECTIONS TO CORNISH FUCKING LOCATIONS IN CORNISH FUCKING CORNWALL.

But I will cherish this knowledge and write it down on several pieces of paper, tattoo it on my thigh, and hire a skywriter to write it in fourteen colours of smoke if I’m ever ASKING A FUCKING CORNISH FARMER IN A FUCKING CORNISH FIELD FOR CORNISH FUCKING DIRECTIONS TO CORNISH FUCKING LOCATIONS IN CORNISH FUCKING CORNWALL.

So thanks for that indispensable advice, Louis. I can die at peace now.

But now that we’ve read your many long lectures on that blessed plot, that earth, that realm, that England, maybe you’ll shut your fucking pasty hole long enough to listen to a lecture on NOT what Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations?

Using something that Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations when you’re not actually a Cornish farmer speaking to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations doesn’t make you a terrible guy. It just makes you kind of an idiot, but I see that you’re pretty wedded to being one.

But when the Cornish thing you said to a non-Cornish non-woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations also

[I’m going to take a break here to let you look up the word “also”, in case that’s not a word a Cornish farmer speaking to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations might use]

Done?

Then let’s continue.

But when the Cornish thing you said to a non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations also happens to sound exactly, in the context, like a condescending way that non-Cornish people talking to a non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in a non-Cornish field not asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations and the non-Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man says, “Don’t do that, because where I am, that’s what assholes smugly say to me when they want to shut me up”, the stupid, asshole, terribly fucking person response is “Fuck you! How dare you not immediately assume I’m using a friendly affectation that Cornish farmers say to Cornish women/not-obviously-gay-men in Cornish fields asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations.”

And that’s what you did.

Because you’re a fucking stupid, self-centred, asshole.

Also depends on a few other things, but hey, why let that get in the way.

No, don’t bother being clear. You’ve got pages to write on how very Cornish you are.

By the way, there’s a wikipedia page on Cornwall. Your reason for being here is done.

For fuck’s sake LILAPWL I did give you one example above and you simply ignored it.

You mean this? I do not understand the problem:

You’re not dealing with my arguments, only snippets that reinforce your existing misunderstandings (see for example your misreading at #201 of my #193, which was couched with sufficient caveats that you snipped to make a literalist reading of one part of that post when I was making a very specific extended analogy).

Fine:

* Just hypothetically, really, just hypothetically, rerun elevatorgate in your head exactly as it was but for one difference. In her video RW said “guys don’t do that. Oh and by the way all hitting on women is always sexist regardless of context”. I presume you’d agree with the first sentence (guys don’t do that) but not the second. Ok, so what you and LILAPWL are saying is not that stark or blatantly erroneous, but what I am trying to explain is I got something not a million miles from that from LILAPWL’s original complaint and continue to get it from you. I am agreeing to the first bit repeatedly and without reservation, and disagreeing with something like the second bit.

That still would not be relevant to what happened here. I in fact did not say “don’t do that. Oh and by the way all calling gay men ‘darling’ is always sexist regardless of context”.

Better?

Find it yourself. Read for comprehension YOURSELF. I could lead you to the water but I can’t make you think. And I’m not really disposed to lead you to the water right this second.

You don’t have to lead me to any water,

but then you aren’t justified in claiming that I’m unwilling to consider whether water exists and that in any case I’m not willing to drink it.

What I want from you is either substantiation or retraction of your claims.

In this whole thread, I have made no claims about you except by quoting what you said and saying that you said what I quoted.

Is it possible for you to utterly miss the point of what I’ve been doing more?

Of course, especially if you’re speaking as a Cornish farmer to a Cornish woman/not-obviously-gay-man in Cornish field asking Cornish directions to Cornish locations, since this isn’t a Cornish field.

I’m off to Dorset tomorrow

Do be sure to save your strength for lectures on how they speak in Dorset so the next time somebody says something that bothers someone else, we can all assume that’s just how they talk across the pond, no offense meant, stop griping, Love.

Can anybody explain what “eyeroll” means in Cornish? Because it’s condescending to a Canadian, and I don’t want to have continued and egregious misunderstandings by not assuming the most charitable interpretation of the term.

Suppose that someday I am put in the position of having to ask directions from an old Cornish farmer (perhaps to the nearest pasty, or game-hen).Do I have to call him “my lover”?

A very small data point perhaps relevant to your query: in the series of mystery novels written by Erle Stanley Gardner under the pen name “A. A. Fair”, one of the principal characters, Bertha Cool, regularly addresses her partner Donald Lam as “lover”.

Bertha is a hard-bitten private investigator who weighs 165 lbs and is very no-nonsense. Donald is a disbarred lawyer turned investigator who weighs not very much at all dripping wet: a pipsqueak, but a competent one. There is nothing sexual or romantic between the two, “lover” notwithstanding.

You don’t have to listen to me; I have no authority here. But if you please – knock it the fuck off. Watching you needle a gay guy over this when he said something perfectly reasonable is a sorry fucking spectacle. Shut your face. You know I like you but that’s not guaranteed to remain the case and you’re not helping.

I get that you’re frustrated, but just stop. Go away on this topic. It’s not good for anyone.

My hope is to trigger your “Josh is a reasonable person” filter so that you’ll see you’re being an asshole. I am not happy.

I can’t understand why Louis is not comprehending any of your clearly stated points (he doesn’t seem that stupid), unless his bruised and swollen ego has somehow affected his ability to understand standard English (as well as his inability to admit he’s wrong and PROPERLY apologize). Or maybe his typically overwrought and unclever prose has somehow prevented us from getting his message (those walls of petulant text made my eyes cross).

I swear, Brownian, if I could bribe someone to get to the front of the line, I would.

Louis, listen to Josh. You’re tired and emotional. Take a break, and on your return, let’s discuss the magnificence resulting from the All Blacks’ new coach. Who knew things could get even magnificenter?!

Josh, you do have authority here–an authority borne of the respect you’ve earned. I only discovered Pharyngula just before Elevatorgate, but I’ve been a regular semi-lurker since then–and you have always been wise, direct, and compassionate (not to mention witty) in your commentary. I always appreciate everything you have to say (and I’ve learned so much from you and many of the regulars); I think I can speak for much of the crowd on this point.

A Canadian using the word “eyeroll” in Cornwall (or almost anywhere in the SW) would probably be thought to be referring to ears.

Well, that’s just stupid. Since, if a North American online reads “Darling” in a way that’s commonly used in North America as a condescending diminutive unless you’re on close terms with the speaker but instead should assume it’s used in the way 0.000079% of the world’s population would use it if they were standing in a field full of sheep shit as opposed to on the internet, it stands to reason that whenever you hear ‘eyeroll’, you should probably consider that the person is probably just referring to the frontman of the band Hot Chocolate rather than making a condescending snark.

Similarly, if in a pub in Finsbury Park (London), and you hear “Ere mates!”, you should not immediately assume, like an idiot, that someone is calling to you and others in a friendly way, but has in fact suddenly spotted the Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science, a school in Ocean County, New Jersey.

And that’s what we’ve all learned about words that are ambiguous, unlike “cunt”, from a man who’s only recently learned that “cunt” is unambiguously sexist.

May I suggest asking kc to brainstorm about anything that it would be nice to do before dying. Big things like traveling to exotic locations, little things like reading a particular book — whatever might add up to a strategy of postponing suicide. Such a strategy, even completely self-consciously pursued, can work.

Why is it a bullshit move on Caine’s part? Keenacat appreciated the support and said so. I don’t think Caine would have made the suggestion if she didn’t think it would help. And people want to help; many of us have/have had loved ones in this situation.

That said, I’m very sorry for your loss. Losing someone to suicide is an unbearable kind of pain and grief.

Been to TET to offer what meager support I can to our needful co-regular. I gather she’s on her way to bed now.

***

Louis:

This horse is not only merely dead, it’s really most sincerely dead. I’ll give it one last thump for good measure, and then I solemnly sweat to STFU.

THAT is your assumption. Or rather one of them. LILAPWL and I are not exactly unacquainted with each other,…

Really? If you have the kind of real-life personal friendship I was describing with him, you’ve been doing a brilliant job of concealing it (and he’s played along with your little performance art project amazingly well). More likely, you just mean you’ve exchanged pleasantries (or crossed swords, or both) with him in the past here at Pharyngula.

As I think I mentioned earlier, being co-regulars here is not the same thing as being friends, howevermuch it may be easy to fall into the trap of feeling otherwise.

…nor are we in some formal debating hall.

I’m the first to agree (and have asserted often in the past) that this verbal space is more like conversation than like formal debate, or like formal writing, for that matter, and I use plenty of colloquial expressions, along with first person pronouns, contractions, profanity, and other things that would get me red marks on a college paper.

But even in a conversational space, an argument is still an argument, and you were in the middle of a heated argument when you tossed out that word.

It was a colloquial conversation where I made an innocent colloquial phrasing. You’re either willing to believe that or not.

I’m willing to believe, if you insist, that you expected it to sound that way… but if so, as I’ve explained, I don’t think that was a reasonable expectation on your part.

I’m also willing to believe that the colloquial usage of darling is, to some degree, cultural determined. However… when you change your mode of discourse in the middle of a fight by addressing your antagonist with an ostensible term of endearment, I think that would “read” as an escalation of a particularly personal nature to most people, in almost any culture.

My guess (and it’s only that) is that if you’d called lilapwl my darling during a friendly exchange, he’d’ve thought nothing of it… or, at worst, would’ve silently written it off as Louis being Louis. But that’s not what you did.

As I said, this has been my last attempt on this subject. If you still don’t grok what folks are telling you, all I can say is well, bless your heart!

I love you, man. Seriously, I do. I want to be in your harem. I want your digits so I can sext you. The whole deal.

And you’re wrong here. I’m sorry to say this, genuinely, because I like you lots better than Pitbull here, but general rule of thumb: follow people’s suggestions for how they want to be addressed, whether you think it’s bullshit or not.

I can’t speak for Caine, but I don’t think she literally meant 5 minutes. I think she was simply saying, “Come over and help if you can.”

I can see how you might hear sarcasm. However, this is Caine we’re talking about. Even though I haven’t been here that long, Caine has never been anything but extraordinarily honest and compassionate in her behavior here–so I can’t picture her at all being flippant or sarcastic about helping someone who’s feeling suicidal.

Note, also, that it’s not a deontological value. I do it because I want people to recognize that I respect their ability to define for themselves who and what they are, because I want them to do the same to me.

But you’re really fucking stupid when it comes to this shit, so of course you don’t get it. Asshole.

Suicide is a very sensitive and painful topic. I don’t mean to diminish your experience at all by defending Caine. It’s just that I can’t imagine her being insensitive about it, knowing her as I do from my own experience at Pharyngula.

For the record, let me also point out, that on reading Caine’s comment, the very first thing I did was to go over to TET and see what was going on. Because, you know, this shit is serious. And the end result was that a bunch of people had jumped in to say “it’s ok, we’re here”, which is (usually) exactly the right response.

Even though I haven’t been here that long, Caine has never been anything but extraordinarily honest and compassionate in her behavior here–so I can’t picture her at all being flippant or sarcastic about helping someone who’s feeling suicidal.

I think you’re interpreting this very differently.

I figure cm’s changeable moniker was referring to Caine’s apparent attitude toward this thread, its inhabitants and the importance of the discussion we were having here. There are a lot of threads on pharyngula. Why wasn’t this announced on all the other threads, if it wasn’t also supposed to be some kind of statement about this one? Is TZT the only one where there are people who perhaps don’t “feel like doing something else for 5 minutes,” or was that not the implication by phrasing it conditionally? And while LILAPWL can’t comment on TET at all, I haven’t been following it closely for several days either. Should I feel bad that I wasn’t being supportive earlier because I wasn’t commenting there and because I probably won’t be around later on?

So if it was a rhetorical swipe, then I agree that using this sort of situation like that is bullshit which I don’t appreciate at all. Caine probably didn’t mean it that way, but that is nevertheless how it came across.

I dunno who this Hyperon fellow is, he appears to be before my time… but just the lame way he either tries to deny or flat out ignore the accusations whenever they’re brought up suggests to me that he is.

It really is amusing to be accused of inadequacy by people who mostly look like goblins based on the Pharyngula group photos, and who are, judging the quality of their arguments and their general herd-like behaviour, mediocre little shits.

Not that any of this should matter in any case. But repeatedly a number of commenters have repeated perpetrated the fallacy of “argumentum ad dickum”. Slimepit indeed. It’s always an interesting experience, nevertheless, from purely anthropologically point of view.

There are a lot of threads on pharyngula. Why wasn’t this announced on all the other threads, if it wasn’t also supposed to be some kind of statement about this one? Is TZT the only one where there are people who perhaps don’t “feel like doing something else for 5 minutes,” or was that not the implication by phrasing it conditionally?

It couldn’t have been that this was the active thread, where multiple regulars were conversing?

Should she have spammed the visible posts on the sidebar because TZT is only one place?

It really is amusing to be accused of inadequacy by people who mostly look like goblins based on the Pharyngula group photos, and who are, judging the quality of their arguments and their general herd-like behaviour, mediocre little shits.

What does any of our physical appearance have to do with the fact that you fail at being a human being? (Decent doesn’t even enter the picture)

Keep projecting, Deadbeat. It doesn’t change the basic facts.

You’re also still a fucking predator. Women are well advised to carry pepper spray when you’re around.

Audley: Don’t get too excited yet. He just ignored PZ’s warning and posted more nonsense.

The time stamp for that was 14 minutes after PZ’s warning.

So either he took over 15 minutes to compose his last piece of utter drivel (well, he did admit, and amply demonstrate, that honest communication was not his forte), and posted it without refreshing and seeing the warning, or he did, deliberately thumb his nose at it.

I see Brownian has posted again in the buxom thread. Poor sod is trying to delude himself that “soft skills” are in short supply relative to specific technical training as well as general problem-solving. He thinks he can get to me with his cheap shot about salary, but he fails pathetically and just shows his shallowness. If I seemed bitter, it was only because of a temporary setback, which I anticipated years ago. But being empty inside like Brownian is…that’s more than a setback.

I see Brownian has posted again in the buxom thread. Poor sod is trying to delude himself that “soft skills” are in short supply relative to specific technical training as well as general problem-solving. He thinks he can get to me with his cheap shot about salary, but he fails pathetically and just shows his shallowness. If I seemed bitter, it was only because of a temporary setback, which I anticipated years ago. But being empty inside like Brownian is…that’s more than a setback.

Temporary setback? How long is temporary? Because your personality flaws don’t look like they’re going away any time soon.

Oh I forgot, they’re not ‘flaws’, everyone else is flawed because they don’t want to work with a privileged whiny manchild who creates an unsafe work environment for any women unlucky enough to be near him.

Dude, you’re a liability to any company that gives you a chance. A fucking LIABILITY.

Last I remember, most of it’s a pseudo-science, full of cultural-relativist obscurantism. The remaining 20% can be interesting, but of course, doesn’t require a degree.

Ah, I see. So some obscure portion of anthropology which isn’t a pseudoscience doesn’t require a degree, because, well … for no apparent reason. I guess some people just have other ways of doing things.

I see that the fapwit, having run out of arguments, gotten itself deservedly quarantined, and lacking the intellectual prowess to think up plausible new lies, is reduced to trying to blither out a string insults against Brownian.

The point you can’t get is that people like me, with soft AND hard skills, are in short supply.

You mean master bullshitters who can program half-competently, at least in between the ten seconds it takes them to get distracted and wander off somewhere like Dee Dee from Dexter’s Lab?

Anyway, one difference between you and me is that like a good little thrall, you define yourself in terms utility to your coporate overlords. I submit it’s your kind that’s ten a penny.

Normally, I have no truck with this style of dick-measuring. But you started it, and you’re such an insufferably insulting, self-congratulatory, narcisssitic piece of shit that something had to be said.

Also, for someone who refuses to “prostitute himself out”* (nice choice of words, asshole), you sure are stuck on how much Brownian make.

Well, I am shallow. I’ll give him that.

But let’s see, what other things can we talk about that makes someone a useful, contributing member of society?

I could talk about my volunteerism (I’d made just under a hundred blood donations, before travel made me ineligible), used to use my well-rounded soft AND hard skills in fundraising (I was much beloved by the volunteers, managed to network the entire office with shoddy, out-of-date donated computer equipment as well as teach myself database design because you frankly don’t have a lot of money to hire specialists when you’re making money for the purpose of disease research, rather than padding out an office), have been a writer, actor, and director on several theatrical and film productions, designed clothing as a hobby, but I’m sure Illithid doesn’t want to hear about all of those Bohemian, soft skills.

Illishit, evidence to back your fuckwitted allegations aren’t found in newspaper factoids. They are found in Master’s theses and PhD dissertations, which are published and can be found using Google Scholar. Not only are the facts accurate, they have context, which can often be lacking in newspaper factoids, and with your bigotry.

You complained in a previous thread we weren’t free thinkers as we didn’t agree with your fuckwittery. In other words, you were defining free thinkers as only people who agree with you, which means they really aren’t thinking for themselves. You see the problem, don’t you? Until you present me with the proper evidence you are right, you are nothing other than a loud mouthed misogynist bigot. If the Foo Shits, wear it. Start citing or shut the fuck up…

Do analyses need to explicitly include all possibilities to be fair, or only the most probable ones?

Perhaps you could find some sophists to come up with ever more possibilities, to help with your analysis as well as mine, if that matters.

To be fair, you can’t ignore possibilities which run counter to your motivated analysis and which are hardly obscure, and more importantly still not contrast the actual case with a hypothetical one that you think isn’t a good idea, as if it failed some sort of test thereby.

—

PS Not that hard to find.

See, where before you were engaged in motivated reasoning, now you’re engaging in sophistry.

“Soft” skills (handling people), are almost always more challenging than “hard” skills (handling objects and data and so forth).

Because people are more complicated than objects. They change more readily, respond more variably. They can be more easily damaged, and harder to recover when damaged.

“Soft” skills are much rarer than “hard” skills, because they are more difficult.

“Soft” sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc), are HARDER than “hard” sciences (physics, chemistry, etc). Humans and human societies are more complicated than subatomic particles, atoms, stars and the like. Their behavior is harder to predict, and the laws that they obey are more complex. They are harder to evaluate, harder to test.

“Soft” sciences are often criticized for lacking the methodological rigour of “hard” sciences, making their results and conclusions less reliable and less trustworthy. This criticism is true. But the reason it is true is because the “soft” sciences are harder. They lack in rigour comparatively because their subject material is one where rigour is harder to obtain (even if ethical considerations are put aside). Since the scientists who are in these fields should be, on average, equally skilled (why should human beings who decide to study sociology be, solely by dint of choosing to study sociology, be any less competent as scientists than human beings who choose to study physics?), and that means that, given these equal pools of skill, the hard sciences can accomplish greater results because their subject material is easier to study.

The greater respect we afford the results of “hard” sciences is certainly justifiable. But to translate that across to comparatively denigrating the process of “soft” sciences in comparison is a category error, and unfair to those fields of study.

I guess it has finally had enough time to think up new ones. Or perhaps, like the proverbial goldfish, the fapwit’s limited long-term memory only spans two threads, and it has forgotten the dick-measuring it INTRODUCED on that first thread it infested.

I could talk about my volunteerism (I’d made just under a hundred blood donations, before travel made me ineligible), used to use my well-rounded soft AND hard skills in fundraising (I was much beloved by the volunteers, managed to network the entire office with shoddy, out-of-date donated computer equipment as well as teach myself database design because you frankly don’t have a lot of money to hire specialists when you’re making money for the purpose of disease research, rather than padding out an office), have been a writer, actor, and director on several theatrical and film productions, designed clothing as a hobby, but I’m sure Illithid doesn’t want to hear about all of those Bohemian, soft skills.

So you spend the rest of your days tooting your own horn on Pharyngula, as well as trying to inflict the most damage possible.

Anyway, one difference between you and me is that like a good little thrall, you define yourself in terms utility to your coporate overlords. I submit it’s your kind that’s ten a penny.

Says the dude that is unqualified for the job he wants. Hey, I have an idea, illie! Since you refuse to bow down to your corporate overlords*, why don’t you strike it out on your own and become an entrepreneur? That way you get to call the shots and you get to pretend that you’re totally not a capitalist, but an individualist!, and not sucking on anyone’s teat.

So am I, just not as gainfully as I’d like. But to someone of my Bohemian bent, it’s hardly a source of worry, all told. Read “The Conquest of Happiness” by Russell. He recommends a course of action of even going to the extent of eking by with life of the lowest means if it’s the only alternative to prostiuting yourself before a company whose work you don’t find important and which gives you no “inner satisfaction” whatsoever. That idea might be quite foreign to a mediocirty like Brownian who goes straight to comparing wallets.

for someone who whines about economic oppression so much, this is fucking rich.

Voluntary poverty and the ability not to have to care much about money is a sign of massive economic privilege. Most genuinely poor people don’t have the leisure to contemplate not working for a corporation because it’s unfulfilling; they have bills to pay, lest they end up without water/electricity/food/housing/healthcare/childcare/transportation/etc.

To be fair, you can’t ignore possibilities which run counter to your motivated analysis and which are hardly obscure, and more importantly still not contrast the actual case with a hypothetical one that you think isn’t a good idea, as if it failed some sort of test thereby.

That I didn’t exhaust the possibilities while doing so doesn’t mean I’ve ignored them. Motivated or not, I was describing my own reaction to it, so rest assured that if you had something substantial to add, it wouldn’t be ignored.* Any comment on the part where I said that “Caine probably didn’t mean it that way”?

As for the actual and hypothetical cases, I wasn’t offering it as a suggestion of what she should’ve done, but to explain one of the things about it that led to the interpretation I made. If she had also posted it elsewhere, I would’ve interpreted it differently (and more than likely the comment would’ve been different), which isn’t to say I think that’s what she should’ve done.

*Since you can’t read Caine’s mind any better than I can, what’s motivating you to offer these possibilities?

Because you didn’t know it at first, and you go after people much less thick-skinned than I am. The intent is malicious and that led me to psychoanalyze you.

Anyway, I really don’t want anything more to do with this blog. I thought a season “grand finale” would be apt. Naturally, you’re just a minor character. On the Illithid Show — oh look, I did a Brownian! Nah, you’re puffed up enough already, and I’m not going to play into your hands by coining that word.

That I didn’t exhaust the possibilities while doing so doesn’t mean I’ve ignored them.

What is with this conceit I am referring to exhausting the possibilities?

Motivated or not, I was describing my own reaction to it, so rest assured that if you had something substantial to add, it wouldn’t be ignored.* Any comment on the part where I said that “Caine probably didn’t mean it that way”?

You did more than describe, you purportedly adduced two bases for it, too.

As for the actual and hypothetical cases, I wasn’t offering it as a suggestion of what she should’ve done, but to explain one of the things about it that led to the interpretation I made. If she had also posted it elsewhere, I would’ve interpreted it differently (and more than likely the comment would’ve been different), which isn’t to say I think that’s what she should’ve done.

IOW, a basis for your contention.

*Since you can’t read Caine’s mind any better than I can, what’s motivating you to offer these possibilities?

Anyway, I really don’t want anything more to do with this blog. I thought a season “grand finale” would be apt. Naturally, you’re just a minor character. On the Illithid Show — oh look, I did a Brownian! Nah, you’re puffed up enough already, and I’m not going to play into your hands by coining that word.

He’ll be back as soon as he thinks everyone’s forgotten his laughable display of entitlement and self pity.

Anyway, I really don’t want anything more to do with this blog. I thought a season “grand finale” would be apt. Naturally, you’re just a minor character. On the Illithid Show — oh look, I did a Brownian! Nah, you’re puffed up enough already, and I’m not going to play into your hands by coining that word.

vs.

By the way, fans of the soft sciences will note that the “It really is amusing”-type of line is so fucking unoriginal it has its own classification here.
Nothing says “I’m superior” like being a caricature.

Also, I should apologise for all that bullshit about salary and getting jobs and stuff. I know it ain’t easy, especially in this economy, and I knew I was risking hitting others who are having a hard time making ends meet with friendly fire, but I hoped getting the little fuck to leave (assuming he sticks the flounce) would make up for it.

Brownian, I am desperately poor right now (But not unemployed, I’m technically working for Caine ATM), and I loved every second of that. I can’t speak for everyone, but I knew exactly what you were doing and it didn’t hurt me personally.

After all, I may be desperately poor, but I am still attempting to do something about it, and not trying to blame my problems on women or people with ‘soft skills’ (whatever the fuck he was trying to get at with that).

I know it ain’t easy, especially in this economy, and I knew I was risking hitting others who are having a hard time making ends meet with friendly fire, but I hoped getting the little fuck to leave (assuming he sticks the flounce) would make up for it.

There’s a difference between having a shitty time because of a shitty economy and blaming your shortfalls on someone else while at the same time claiming it’s “bohemian” to do so.

Okay, good. And I’m glad Jadehawk came in to clean up with this comment.

I did not make it to Pride.

I didn’t either. I should have made the parade. Two years ago I made plans to go to the beer gardens with some friends from the GLBT-positive pubs I frequent, as well as my gay coworker and her partner (now married). I somehow found myself inside (I must have joined the re-entry line by accident) and got right happy while she and her partner waited in the right line for three hours before deciding to do something else. So from now on I’m forgoing the beer gardens unless I know there’s room for all of the GLBT people first, and their straight friends like me after.

It’s just that there’s limited space (or there was, the last time I was able to go), and I felt badly that actual LBQT people were unable to get in because non-LBQT people like me were taking up space.

Like I said, I mostly frequent LBQT-supportive bars (like the Next Act and The Empress), and used to love dancing at The Roost when it was open, but I’ve learned from conversations with LBQT people that it’s important that they have their own spaces as well, without infringement by straight people, no matter how well-intentioned.

Brownian
“Having their own spaces”
seems like segregation.
but since I am privileged I cannot speak to the comfort-zone of others.
{Now I feel that if I got into the Pride beer-tent, I’d be doing anthropology.}
{[fuck. I just wanted a beer.]}

Chigau: I dunno. It seems more to me like a response to oppression, yanno? Like maybe it’d be different if there wasn’t so much of that nonsense still going on.

I too speak from privilege, but I could easily see the members of a marginalized group wanting their own space where they don’t have to worry about homophobia, at all, not even in the back of their mind.

TLC
Yes. I get it. I agree.
Mundane going to the bar should have safe spaces.
(gad just ignore the privilege-speak)
But Pride should be more … inviting.
(gad gad just ignore the privilege-speak)
{posting it anyway}

Chigau, the problem wasn’t that straight people weren’t welcome, it’s that so many people wanted to enjoy pride that there wasn’t enough room for everybody. I’ll bet the organizers are more prepared now.

I’d rate wine making as a hard skill requiring a soft touch. It requires the ability to select quality fruit and have it picked at the right time, enough control over the fermentation process to balance the flavors & acidity, and releasing it at just the right time.

Grapes are often grown and sent to the winemaker from elsewhere, removing this task from the list, but it’s still a demanding profession.

Right, I’ve re-read the threads and rather than dig further with tedious details, here it is:

I fucked up in my response to Lilapwl, repeatedly and in a stunning variety of ways! Rather than trying to explain where I was coming from ad nauseum, which has pissed numerous people off ( even the sensible ones ;-) Joke) I’ll plumb for finally noticing the first rule of holes and stop digging.

Whilst I don’t see everything how many of you seem to, I do see how I persisted as wrong and several of the things I did/said as wrong and for those I apologise unreservedly. I hope that’s good enough for you all.

Uh, okay, sure. Is that what we’re doing now? Just saying completely random shit because who cares whether it’s accurate or not?

In that case, Rajkumar, I’m totally sick of your Irish accent, and I wish you’d stop conducting the symphony from atop zeppelins. Or whatever. Because it’s Stupid Time With Fuckhead again, I guess.

Whee.

Raj, aren’t you ever upset at the god you believe in for making you this way? Because that god, if it were to exist, would be by definition a huge fucking asshole with a personal grudge against you in particular. But that never crosses your mind does it—no, I guess it couldn’t.

[Tries to think of a topic of casual conversation with Raj.]

So, what is the best tasting colour of paint chip? Um, stuck your head in any good plastic bags lately?

Ah, fuck it.

[Takes out a ring of keys, jangles them in front of Raj while reading up on how to assess someone over the Internet using the Glasgow Coma Scale.]

Raj, aren’t you ever upset at the god you believe in for making you this way? Because that god, if it were to exist, would be by definition a huge fucking asshole with a personal grudge against you in particular. But that never crosses your mind does it—no, I guess it couldn’t.

No, it never crosses my mind. Why it never crosses my mind? Because I don’t believe in that huge fucking asshole of as god. That god, by definition, doesn’t exist, and cannot exist. As Nerd would say, dismissed POOF citation needed and all that.

But looks like you’re on roll here today. Better leave you alone… Unless, of course, you had some deep-seated desire to socialize with me. In which case, I am all available for you.

Because I don’t believe in that huge fucking asshole of as god. That god, by definition, doesn’t exist, and cannot exist.

That god that Brownian refers to, fapwit, is “the god YOU BELIEVE IN,” specifically that god which you, fapwit, had spent so much time blathering about how you believe that it is possible for it to exist. NOT the judeo-christianish god that we have spent some of our time mocking for being an asshole. The god that YOU STATED, PROUDLY, THAT YOU BELIEVED IN.

You come back after your hiatus, and just about the first thing of any substance that you do is LIE.

AGAIN.

At least you are consistent in your continuing pathetic dishonesty, fapwit.

But looks like you’re on roll here today. Better leave you alone…

Should have considered this before posting your dishonest drivel and exposing yourself, once again, as an unethical idiot, and stayed silent.

Fapwit#2 goes away, and Fapwit#1 bumbles back in.

Fapfap.

Brownian, your new formulation for the TZT bait trap is most impressive. A tankard of grog for you! (From fermented sour grapes, of course. Making alcoholic beverages might be a “hard” a hard skill, but drinking it is a “soft” skill. And we all know which of the two is more important, and more rewarding, now don’t we?)

That god that Brownian refers to, fapwit, is “the god YOU BELIEVE IN,” specifically that god which you, fapwit, had spent so much time blathering about how you believe that it is possible for it to exist. NOT the judeo-christianish god that we have spent some of our time mocking for being an asshole. The god that YOU STATED, PROUDLY, THAT YOU BELIEVED IN.

Oh Ok. But I suppose none of you know nothing about the God I refer to. Do you? Please don’t say you do. You already have a rich and colourful history of lying.

Uh, okay, sure. Is that what we’re doing now? Just saying completely random shit because who cares whether it’s accurate or not?

Between this and illithid’s nonsensical “You all look like goblins because I didn’t like some picture I saw of Pharyngula people which may or may not have actually included anyone I was talking to, and also that’s totally relevant,” the trolls today are on a really sad roll of pathetic.

In that case, Rajkumar, I’m totally sick of your Irish accent, and I wish you’d stop conducting the symphony from atop zeppelins. Or whatever.

Female Shop Assistant: Why should I tell you, copper?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Because I’m the last line of defense between sleaze like this and the decent people of this town.
Male Shop Assistant: Oh, hi, Frank. Say, we got that model D83 Swedish sure-grip suck machine that you ordered.

None of us know nothing, some of us know something, some of us don’t know anything, all of us know something or another, a few of us knew something, but don’t regard it as being anything, and some of us don’t want to make something out of nothing.

Female Shop Assistant: Why should I tell you, copper?
Lt. Frank Drebin: Because I’m the last line of defense between sleaze like this and the decent people of this town.
Male Shop Assistant: Oh, hi, Frank. Say, we got that model D83 Swedish sure-grip suck machine that you ordered.

I have a question, but I’m afraid I’ve asked it before to little effect.
Why the hell do you bother posting if you’re not even trying to communicate?

Damn, I missed the finale of that episode. That level of implosion must rate 10/10 on the disappearing-up-troll’s-own-arse-scale. I only hope the little pimple doesn’t have anyone around him irl right now; he might try to chew their ankles.

John, the most fun I ever had at Pharyngula was arguing with a certain libertarian for a solid year.

We still get to argue, but now we can argue by email

*feeling nostalgic and envious*

I loved reading those arguments; probably some of the most informative, intellectually satisfying exchanges I’ve read on pharyngula. poo on you for hiding them from me by being all private and friendshippy :-p

All seconded. I’m with comments 367 and 368 as well, and I have a lot of catching-up to do… sometime… later. :-(

I was playing with my daughter today and we had a little mis-communication. She pointed at a pile of assorted toys and household goods seconded to the preschooler distraction resource pool, and said:

“Can I please* have the bowl?”.
“Sure.” says I, handing her the yellow plastic bowl.
“No Daddy, the BOWL!”
“But honey, I gave it to you.”
“No the bowl, the bowl!” pointing emphatically.
“Oh, you mean the BALL. Here you go.”

This not the first time her accent has tripped me up. Every time it happens I have this little stab of unreasonable worry that it’s just going to get worse and worse, that we’re going to end up not being able to communicate at all. It bums me out a bit, especially when my mood is already down and I’m vulnerable to that sort of irrational concern.

So what do I do for distraction? I turn to TZT. And what do I find? Raj has deflounced!! Not only that but he’s once again lifting my mood as no one else can. In just a few short sentences my perspective has been realigned. rejigged and re-calibrated. None of my miscommunications with my daughter have ever lasted for days on end after all. Hell, none of them have lasted more than a half dozen sentences.

Once again I’m bathed in the reflected pride of being the father of a 4 year old whose ability to express herself coherently outstrips a purported adult. My mood has been wafted skyward on a thermal of superheated idiocy. Thanks raj, you’re the best free therapy money can buy!

Try teaching a few first graders some high school science, and they are all going to say the same thing. Don’t shift the blame on me for your own dumb assness.

Your contempt for young children is noted, fapwit. The irony that you express yourself less clearly and ably than the average sixth grader appears lost on you, fapwit.
Fapfap.

Evolution can be explained in a simplified version that a first grader can understand. So can quantum mechanics, by someone who really knows that subject. Or ANY OTHER idea worth knowing.

If YOU cannot explain an idea in a fashion that anyone, including a first grader, can understand, it means that YOU do not understand that idea, and are NOT QUALIFIED to be expressing it. And certainly not with the degree of arrogant pseudo-certainty with which you, fapwit, do so.

When you try to act superior in any way, you will get a similar reply.

No one here is “acting” superior to you, fapwit. All we have done is DEMONSTRATE, with evidence (provided by YOUR OWN WORDS), where you are deficient and inferior in intellect, coherence, and integrity.

That this automatically makes us appear “superior” to you is merely a side effect. There is no “act.” All that is necessary is for us to behave as normal human beings of average decency.

When you, on the other hand, instead of reflecting on where you have demonstrated yourself inferior and deficient in intellect, coherence and integrity and attempting self-improvement, decide it is appropriate to attempt (and fail hilariously) to make “similar” replies, all it does is further demonstrate, even more vividly, those same deficiencies in intellect, coherence and integrity.

Bloody Hell!
I’ve dissected a couple of turtles but I somehow missed that.
(was specifically looking at the parts of the nervous system and the brain so that could explain it, or perhaps we had two female turtles…)

Raj, I know that you think it’s because you have some incredibly deep and spiritual understanding of god that we’re too square to dig, but it’s actually because you, like all wannabe-hippie flakes, have no coherent concept of god whatsoever.

You’re not deep; you’re actually quite shallow and thoughtless.

But enough about you.

How’s your mother’s live turkey pizza emporium doing? Still having tax troubles with the Framboisish Empire? I hope she’s on speaking turns with her spleen again soon. They’ve been friends for too long to let a little disagreement about whether or not hat size is a a vegetable stand between them.

Incidentally, I’ve had “roight moi darlin’”s and “roight moi luvvers” from people of both sexes, both older and younger than me, when I’ve asked for directions or bought something in a shop. I’m trying to get across how neutral this is, it really isn’t universally implying intimacy etc. It’s an affectation, a local colour, a figure of speech a….I don’t know how many different ways I can say the same damned thing! I’m neither their lover nor their darling. It’s just not that sort of phrase in that context. I can see how someone would take it so but it ain’t necessarily so. Again.

Women can say ‘honey’ and ‘babe/baby’ and ‘darling’ and ‘love’ to men, and even women, around here – and it happens all the time. They can say ‘boys’ to a group of men, and ‘bitch’ to a woman. Everyone can call men dicks, pricks, and assholes, but due to convention, these don’t apply to ladies(which seems about the only term for the fairer sex that doesn’t have man or male as the root word).

I have very mixed feelings about all this. By very mixed, I mean adamant, in both directions. Very much depends on inflection, culture, and local class environments, and in my case, it’s down there, maaaaan! So, on the one hand, just by being so commonly used and taken for granted they have lost much meaning as sexist remarks, and ‘in person’ inflection can convey quite different and benign intention, but on the other these are still insidious promotions of gender classification, and it is very important to understand the ramifications of this kind of seemingly minor banter.However, preaching is fucking prohibited at TZT, do I make my self clear?
I propose this as an amendment to section 47, subsections 666 i – xiii, or is that iixv? on page elebenty point .o68 X 10¯³ of the unPolicies and Conduct Guidlines And Considerations scroll:

(i)If someone shalt engageth (the party of the first part) thus in which it is sayd a most preachatorial thing, thus havng sayeth suchness as to dictate in an unepistemological phenominary utterance in that of second party direction,

(ii)shall then, and if and only then, except for exceptions, be found to have offered thus an own skull of whicheth it is permissible for other parties to partake of a thorough cracking open and engorgement of thyselves of uncooked contents; bring your own Sause le tomatte.

but it’s actually because you, like all wannabe-hippie flakes, have no coherent concept of god whatsoever.

An idea that cannot be expressed coherently does not deserve to be understood.

A communicator who cannot express his ideas coherently does not deserve to be listened to.

I don’t agree. “does not deserve” might be better put with “cannot expect.”

There is a matter of responsibility to the communicatee for their expectations and listening skills. And some people have entirely cohesive and brilliant ideas, yet lack an inherent ability to express themselves clearly for certain reasons.

My position is that if there is some idea being expressed, however badly, then I want to understand it.

This ‘deserving or not deserving’ sounds like ‘too many spelling errors’ and just more ‘not conforming to my standards’ bs that I get at many conservative and fundie forums and blogs.

However, don’t expect to not be ridiculed or corrected or ignored if you don’t make sense, and I speak from frustrating experience.

Thus, mikmik spoke thus:
I will have the painters in Tuesday next to apply these murals onto my from room walls, however, that leaves one illustration with a wall to inhabit. My question is, Which one is best suited for ceiling display?
Yours in whoreship,
tartigrade molt.

Okay, off to work(on my computer) but I implore you, anyone, does anyone know of why I can subscribe to every thread and blog on FTb but not Pharyngula?

I’m sorry if I missed it if someone has addressed this before, as I only get minimal time to visit sporadically, usually right after all the fireworks have ended of course, but it is pissing me off that I can’t figure it out, but now Ireland has replied and I must go watch and design a website for an painter of art.

I’ll bookmark this comment and check back when I can.
Thanks, Mike Laing of Scottish descent.

There is a matter of responsibility to the communicatee for their expectations and listening skills. And some people have entirely cohesive and brilliant ideas, yet lack an inherent ability to express themselves clearly for certain reasons.

This is why I was speaking in generalities. Responsibility, in all things, is measured in “reasonable expectation”. The communicatee is only responsible for a level of understanding that would be reasonably expected for the situation. It is the communicator’s responsibility to express the ideas within that reasonably expected range.

What I mean by incoherence here is incoherence beyond that reasonably expected range.

As for your second point, communicator doesn’t mean the person with the idea, it means the person trying to communicate the idea. The person with the brilliant idea who does not have the ability to express it clearly is not the “communicator” I am referring to. The communicator is the one who is trying to express the idea to others, whether it is his or her own or not. If a person with a brilliant idea wants it communicated but lacks the ability to communicate it effectively, his or her responsibility is find a communicator who can do this for them. If that communicator nevertheless fails to express the idea coherently, that communicator does not deserve to be listened to.

And if the idea is one for which NO communicator can be found who can communicate it effectively, then it doesn’t deserve to be understood no matter how brilliant it is, because if other people cannot be made to understand it, and the idea cannot spread beyond its originator, the idea is useless.

“Deserving” here is used in the practical sense of the word, not the moral sense.

And of course I am not restricting the communications to just one attempt. A collaborative process between communicator and communicatee, spanning a variable amount of time, is allowed….

What I mean by incoherence here is incoherence beyond that reasonably expected range.

As for your second point, communicator doesn’t mean the person with the idea, it means the person trying to communicate the idea. The person with the brilliant idea who does not have the ability to express it clearly is not the “communicator” I am referring to. The communicator is the one who is trying to express the idea to others, whether it is his or her own or not. If a person with a brilliant idea wants it communicated but lacks the ability to communicate it effectively, his or her responsibility is find a communicator who can do this for them. If that communicator nevertheless fails to express the idea coherently, that communicator does not deserve to be listened to.

And if the idea is one for which NO communicator can be found who can communicate it effectively, then it doesn’t deserve to be understood no matter how brilliant it is, because if other people cannot be made to understand it, and the idea cannot spread beyond its originator, the idea is useless.

“Deserving” here is used in the practical sense of the word, not the moral sense.

And of course I am not restricting the communications to just one attempt. A collaborative process between communicator and communicatee, spanning a variable amount of time, is allowed….

Like right now.

Damn youuuuuuu………..

I hate it when I say shit to folk that I know know more than I give them credit for, that don’t need ‘splainin’ from me ;)

I agree with you here. I was thinking along the lines of intention – if someone is genuinely trying to contribute constructively but has difficulty, and that wasn’t what you meant. At all.

And for the record, there are galaxies full of people that do not deserve attention to what they say, I agree with that. I just wish it wasn’t so much fun.

I don’t talk about it here that often, but I have been experiencing feelings of hopelessness and pointlessness, and associated suicidal ideations without intent, on and off for a long while now. (The most recent thing that caused it was finding out that someone who used to be my very close friend was willing to travel far out of his way to visit me and I couldn’t do it, because I don’t have sufficient confidence in my ability to keep my psychological state under control and my most important meatspace support person won’t be around.)

At those times (not right now) I become emotionally convinced that there’s nothing in life that I actually want for myself, and that there’s no reason to do anything because nothing will get better. I feel like I haven’t gotten back on track with wanting things yet; I feel like the only thing I really, truly want is to get better, and that’s not a hugely useful goal in itself. I don’t believe I’m at any risk at all, especially because I feel like the thoughts themselves are sort of external to me – as Alethea put it before, brain-spam – and I always know intellectually that they’re wrong and I have all sorts of good things in my life and should definitely not die, but they’re very loud is the problem. Even if it’s not dangerous, it’s still distressing and distracting. I feel like making that sort of list will help to stave off that sort of thinking for me. So thanks. I just can’t figure out if I should make it soon and read it over when things get bad, or if I should try to do it then.

Raj, I know that you think it’s because you have some incredibly deep and spiritual understanding of god that we’re too square to dig, but it’s actually because you, like all wannabe-hippie flakes, have no coherent concept of god whatsoever.

You’re not deep; you’re actually quite shallow and thoughtless.

But enough about you.

No, Brownian. It’s because I have no understanding whatsoever of God, and I have said that before many times. You and your ilk, mistakenly, presuppose that God, if God was real, must be some ‘coherent concept’ to human mind. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and you cannot argue with facts. So, my views about God are that God exists for sure, but human mind, including your mind and my mind, is too puny an instrument to get ANY understanding of God using logic and reason. But this, of course, doesn’t mean we cannot have an **experience** of God. But, of course, if you are a hard core atheist, and you have had your entire life’s work invested in your being an atheist, you are going to look in every nook and cranny to deny that experience as anything real. But look at the word DENY. Denying something means you will be in DENIAL.

How’s your mother’s live turkey pizza emporium doing? Still having tax troubles with the Framboisish Empire? I hope she’s on speaking turns with her spleen again soon. They’ve been friends for too long to let a little disagreement about whether or not hat size is a a vegetable stand between them.

I guess everything is fine with her and about her. She’s expecting a new grandchild soon. She’s jumping all over the place in sheer joy, like Mexican jumping beans. Pray it’s a boy, she said to me. Amen, I said in my heart.

cm, why pardon the fuck out of me for not bothering to type out “Hey, I know everyone is busy stomping and arguing in here, but a regular is suicidal and could use some help, a message of support will take 5 minutes.” Thanks ever so much for being a flaming asshole, one who just couldn’t even be bothered to offer any support, ’cause ya know, other people had it covered.

CR and Jadehawk, I am seriously sick of your shit. You both have taken every fucking opportunity to attempt to paint me as an asshole and I’m tired of it. I don’t care how aggrieved you are on behalf of SG – it is not my fault he got his ass canned from TET. It’s so nice to know you support harassment and lying as long as it’s SG doing it. You can both go choke on a porcupine.